Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Staffordshire Joint Hospital District) Bill.

Read a Second time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BLACKBURN) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the county borough of Blackburn," presented by Mr. Elliot; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HASTINGS) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Hastings," presented by Mr. Elliot; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEYTON) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Leyton," presented by Mr. Elliot; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LUTON EXTENSION) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Luton," presented by Mr. Elliot; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

TRADE AND NAVIGATION.

Accounts ordered,
relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1939."—[Mr. Stanley.]

PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (GROSS AND NET COST, 1937).

Copy ordered,
of Statement showing the gross and net total cost of the Civil and Revenue Departments and the Navy, Army and Air Services, for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1938."—[Captain Wallace.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NINE-POWER TREATY.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Prime Minister whether any official intimation has now been received from the Imperial Government of Japan of a desire to modify the Nine-Power Treaty?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN EUROPE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what action it is proposed to take to assist in preserving peace in Eastern Europe, in view of the agitation taking place in connection with the Ukraine?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is not aware of any abnormal developments in either the Polish or Soviet Ukraine such as might indicate that the peace of Europe is threatened in those quarters.

Mr. Mander: Can the Minister say whether Herr Hitler has made up his mind to strike through the Ukraine or towards the West as his next move?

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the present position in Memel?

Mr. Butler: As a result of the recent elections, a new Directorate has taken office at Memel under the presidency of M. Bertuleit, who has proclaimed his intention of conducting the administration on national-socialist principles. Various measures in conformity with those principles have already been adopted, but the Lithuanian Government have not so far taken exception to them.

Mr. Mander: Is the Minister satisfied that the new regulations being put into force are in conformity with the Statute of Memel?

Mr. Butler: As I have said, we have received no information to the contrary from the Lithuanian Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister what changes have taken place in the situation in China during the Recess?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether any British lives were lost in the evacuation of Hankow or Canton?

Mr. Butler: I should have to look up that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. MARK FLANAGAN (DEATH, SICILY).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received any report regarding the killing of Mark Flanagan at Patti, Sicily, by the Italian police?

Mr. Butler: Exhaustive inquiries have been completed through His Majesty's representatives in Italy. The results of these investigations confirm the information which I gave the hon. Member on 5th December.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND PORTUGAL.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the results of the military mission to Portugal; and what arrangements for mutual defence or action are contemplated?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government and the Portuguese Government believe that the Mission whose work has now ended has strengthened the friendship which unites the defence forces of the two countries. As regards the second part of the question, the two Governments are in close and continuous contact on matters of common interest relating to defence, but the disclosure of arrangements of this kind would not be in the public interest.

Mr. Mander: Is it seriously contemplated that the Government are going to

ask the people of this country to fight for the Portuguese colonies?

Mr. Butler: The position has been frequently made quite clear in this House.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Has not Portugal always been a great friend of this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Prime Minister the date of the last meeting of the Non-intervention Committee and when it is likely to meet again?

Mr. Butler: The last meeting of the Non-intervention Committee took place on 5th July, 1938. No date has at present been fixed for a further meeting.

Sir P. Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Secretary of State to the necessity of this committee meeting, in order to consider the constant breaches of the Non-intervention Agreement?

Mr. Butler: I feel sure that my Noble Friend will have the point which the hon. Baronet has in mind quite clearly before him.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not desirable to have a meeting of the Committee, in order to discuss the bringing into force of the plan unanimously agreed to on 5th July?

Mr. Butler: As the hon. Member knows, the plan has not been accepted by General Franco.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement about the negotiations with the Burgos authorities for the payment of compensation to British seamen and shipowners trading with Spain?

Mr. Butler: The communication from the Burgos authorities on this subject which was received towards the end of December was carefully considered by His Majesty's Government in consultation with the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom and other interests concerned. Certain further proposals which were agreed on in the course of these discussions have now been communicated to the Burgos authorities. Until a reply to the latest proposals has been received, I regret that I can give no fuller information about them.

Mr. Roberts: Is it not the fact that in the Note sent in December the Burgos authorities deny that they have ever agreed to pay compensation?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member will put down a question on that point I will give him the answer.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true to say that the Burgos authorities have so far not paid a single penny in compensation, and that seamen who have suffered as a result of the bombing outrages perpetrated by Franco are not yet receiving compensation?

Mr. Butler: I understand that compensation has been paid to seamen by the National Maritime Board. In regard to compensation in the case of ships, that is not usually paid until the end of hostilities. It is true to say that the Burgos authorities have not yet paid anything at all.

Mr. Shinwell: As regards compensation to seamen paid through the medium of the National Maritime Board, does not the right hon. Gentleman know that that is compensation paid under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and has nothing to do with the compensation referred to in the question?

Mr. Butler: I realise that what the hon. Member's question referred to primarily was compensation for damage done to the ships and for the men serving in them.

Mr. Roberts: Would the Minister be prepared to publish the terms of the promise under which General Franco did agree to pay compensation, which was referred to in the Prime Minister's speech in July?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member will put down that question I will certainly give it my consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Should not all such questions on compensation be addressed to the accredited Government of the country?

Mr. Noel-Baker: In recent negotiations have the Government made it quite clear that they do not recognise the legality of the air blockade in which the ships were sunk?

Mr. Butler: Certainly, Sir, and I make that clear at this Box now.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Sir P. Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether he will circulate a map in connection with Command Paper 5908 on the lines of the previous White Papers on the Bad Godesberg and the Munich proposals, showing the frontiers of Czechoslovakia as they were in September; as they would have been according to the Bad Godesberg proposals; as they were stated to be in accordance with the Munich proposals; and the line as shown attached to Command Paper 5908?

Mr. Butler: As the particulars required by the hon. Member are already incorporated in the maps annexed to Command Papers 5848 and 5908, my Noble Friend does not consider the publication of a further White Paper would be justified.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTMENTS

Sir John Mellor: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make with regard to the service of the bonds issued by the Brazilian Government in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Butler: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 23rd November last, the Brazilian President, in the course of a statement published in the Brazilian newspapers on 10th November, declared that his Government continued to be ready to examine with the interested parties any practical scheme which might benefit their creditors and respect the interests of the Bazilian economy. In spite, however, of the above-mentioned declaration, no concrete suggestions have yet been forthcoming as to any resumption of payments in respect of the Brazilian foreign debt, although His Majesty's Ambassador at Rio has continued to direct the attention of the competent Brazilian authorities to the matter. My hon. Friend may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will not lose sight of this question, and that they will, as formerly, afford the fullest support to the Council of Foreign Bondholders in their endeavours to secure acceptable proposals from Brazil.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Have the Government considered the question of accepting Brazilian coffee in part liquidation of sums due under these loans?

Mr. Butler: All due considerations are in the minds of the Council of Foreign Bondholders.

Mr. Gibson: Have the Government taken into account any other relevant considerations besides coffee?

Mr. Butler: Yes, every one.

Mr. Gibson: What are they?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (LOAN DEFAULT).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make with regard to the service of the bonds issued by the Greek Government in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Butler: I regret that there has been no change in the position as stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) on 7th December last, but His Majesty's Government recently took an opportunity to remind the Greek Government of the importance which they attach to a settlement of the debt question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

AIRPORTS, LONDON.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is yet in a position to announce the Government's intentions as regards the London civil airports; and whether it is proposed to continue using Croydon airport, in view of its not conforming to the Air Ministry standards for civil aerodromes?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The plans and a programme of work for large scale development at Heston aerodrome are now being proceeded with. The programme envisages completion by 1942. The projected Fairlop aerodrome, which is being developed by the City Corporation is, I understand, likely to be ready within the next three years. When these two aerodromes are available it will be possible temporarily to close Croydon for major improvements to the surface and buildings. Meanwhile, such further accommodation as is immediately necessary is being provided at Croydon on a semi-permanent basis. It is, however, clear that the future air traffic of the Metropolis will necessitate the provision of another

land airport, and accordingly negotiations are now in train for the purchase of an area of sufficient size at Lullingstone, Kent.

Mr. Perkins: Does my hon. and gallant Friend realise that the statement which he has just made will earn him the everlasting gratitude of all those connected with civil aviation?

Mr. Lyons: In considering this matter will my hon. and gallant Friend pay some regard to the need for providing a central airport for London?

Captain Balfour: I do not think that the future air traffic of the Metropolis can be dealt with by one central airport. It will be better to have three or four airports situated in various localities around London as suited to the particular lines and the particular districts served.

NORTH ATLANTIC SERVICE.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air the present position of the negotiations that have taken place to render possible the establishment of air services across the North Atlantic by Imperial Airways, Limited, and Pan-American Airways in co-operation?

Captain Balfour: The necessary permits for the operation of a regular service by Imperial Airways and Pan-American Airways in co-operation across the North Atlantic between the United Kingdom and New York via Eire, Newfoundland and Canada or via Bermuda were issued in 1937 to each company by the Governments concerned. The establishment in the United States of a new civil aeronautics authority has, however, made it necessary for Imperial Airways to apply for a new permit, and such application has been made. It is hoped that Imperial Airways will be ready to commence a scheduled seasonal service of an experimental character to the United States on 1st June next.

Mr. Day: Does that apply also to Newfoundland, and have the discussions with that country been completed satisfactorily?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Simmonds: Do the permits exclude the possibility of the Governments of this country and of the United States granting similar privileges to the air-lines of a third country?

Captain Balfour: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

Mr. Perkins: Is there any truth in the rumour that the American air-lines are ready to start at once?

Captain Balfour: We had a report that the American air-lines were ready to start. We hope the start will be simultaneous, but if either country should be ready to start earlier than the other, we should not wish to place any obstacle in the way of their doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR RE-ARMAMENT (SCOTLAND).

Mr. Erskine Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make regarding the recent visit of Mr. Lemon, the Director-General of production to Scotland; and whether he can indicate any further development of the air programme in Scotland?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): Yes, Sir. The Director-General of Production visited both Glasgow and Edinburgh at the end of December and discussed the question of Scottish assistance towards the air rearmament programme with the city authorities and leading industrialists. With the cordial co-operation of the Lord Provosts of the two cities, arrangements have been made for exhibitions of air-frame and aero-engine parts to be held concurrently in Edinburgh and Glasgow this month, so that Scottish manufacturers may be able to see at first hand precisely what is required and determine the extent to which they can undertake the manufacture of such parts as subcontractors. In addition, my Department is now in touch with a number of Scottish firms who have applied for inclusion in the Air Ministry list of firms to whom invitations are issued to tender for the supply of items by direct contract. In regard to the last part of the question, negotiations are proceeding for the establishment in Scotland of three maintenance units for the Royal Air Force, in addition to that at Abbotsinch referred to in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) on 30th November last.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that we have had two complete stoppages

of work within the last six months in the Blackburn aircraft factory in Dumbarton, and that on another occasion the factory was absolutely closed down instantaneously by the management? If so, what explanation can he give for a state of affairs of that character, and will he inquire into the matter?

Sir K. Wood: Of course, I regret all stoppages of that kind, but matters relating to labour questions in the factories are more for the Minister of Labour than for myself.

Mr. Kirkwood: Has the right hon. Gentleman not promised to visit this factory in the immediate future?

Sir K. Wood: I hope to be able to visit the factory if I can find time to do so; in any event I will gladly take into account any representations which the hon. Gentleman may make to me on the subject.

Mr. R. Gibson: Has the Director-General visited and inspected the Caird shipyard, Greenock, and could the right hon. Gentleman say how many Greenock firms are on the list of firms supplying the Air Ministry?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, but I will inquire and will communicate with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: In reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement about Scottish contractors being asked to tender and quote, may I ask him how many of them have been asked to quote for the seven balloon-barrage systems—six in the North of England and one in Glasgow?

Sir K. Wood: I could not say.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not one has been asked to quote?

Sir K. Wood: I have said that I could not give a reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the many positions at which traffic beacons are affixed in the public highways that are not sufficiently conspicuous at night; will he consider in what


manner, not only the beacon, but the pedestrian crossing, may be made more clearly visible to drivers of vehicles; and in how many cases his attention has been drawn to this subject by his divisional road engineers?

Mr. Burgin: My attention has been drawn to places where it is alleged that unlighted beacons at pedestrian crossings are not sufficiently conspicuous at night. My desire in such instances is that the street lighting should be improved so that not only the beacon but the crossing and any pedestrians using it may be clearly visible to drivers.

Mr. Day: Has the Minister called the attention of the local authorities to the matter?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir, I have called the attention of the lighting authorities to it.

Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any useful purpose can be served by these beacons? Is he not aware that from time to time they get chipped or broken, which means that local authorities are put to expense?

Mr. Burgin: I do not think the time has come for me to do any destructive work. My proposals ought all to be constructive.

Sir Joseph Nall: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the very obscure position of some of the island refuges being provided at crossings and to the fact that, owing to the lack of illumination, they are a danger to traffic?

MAIN LINE RAILWAYS (ELECTRIFICATION).

Mr. White: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to a scheme for the electrification of certain sections of main line railways so selected that the major benefits of general electrification would be afforded within a fraction of time and cost thereof; and whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a Departmental Committee to consider the matter?

Mr. Burgin: No Sir. My attention has not been drawn to any such scheme nor do I know of it, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the scheme to which he refers I will consider whether it is one which I might suitably bring to the attention of the main line railway companies.

Mr. Crossley: Would not any such scheme do great damage to the coal trade without any compensating advantage?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to discourage the use of the Southern Railway's death rail system?

TEAFFIC CENSUS (LONDON-SOUTHAMPTON ROAD).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give the result of the national traffic census taken for seven days, starting 15th August last, on the main London to Southampton road via the Great West Road, Staines, Camberley, Basingstoke, and Winchester; and how the result compares with the previous census taken?

Mr. Burgin: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: In view of the great increase in the amount of traffic between London and Southampton, will the Minister do his best to expedite the reconstruction of that road?

Mr. Burgin: I am aware of the importance of the road, and the figures which will be published will show a very striking increase of traffic. I agree that it is a very relevant consideration in the priority of road repairs.

Mr. Ede: In what order of priority does the right hon. Gentleman place the new bridge to carry the new road over the Thames to replace Staines Bridge?

Mr. Burgin: I should like to see that question on the Paper, because it is a matter which requires a rather careful answer.

Following is the answer:

On the main London to Southampton Road via the Great West Road, Staines, Camberley, Basingstoke and Winchester a census was taken in August, 1938, at the following 17 points, at which comparable figures of day traffic are available for the previous census in August, 1935:

Three points on Road A4 between Chiswick High Road and the junction with Road A30 at Hounslow Heath.

Ten points on Road A30 between the junction with Road A4 at Hounslow


Heath and the junction with Road A33 south-west of Basingstoke.

Four points on Road A33 between the junction with Road A30 south-west of Basingstoke and Southampton.

Average daily number.


—
Vehicles (other than pedal Cycles).
Pedal Cycles.


1938.
1935.
Increase.
1938.
1935.
Increase+ or Decrease-


No.
Per cent.
No.
Per cent.


On Road A4










Total for 3 points
58,459
56,301
2,158
3.8
17,335
17,646
-311
-1.8


On Road A30










Total for 10 points
88,704
77,519
11,185
14.4
14,443
17,253
-2,810
-16.3


On Road A33










Total for 4 points
21,518
16,127
5,391
33.4
3,386
3.276
+110
+3.4


Total for 17 points
168,681
14,947
18,734
12.5
35,164
38,175
-3,011
-7.9

Comparable figures for night traffic between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. are available for four points on the sections of road in question and the average figures for these points show an increase of 12.2 per cent. in vehicles other than pedal cycles (from 6,191 vehicles to 6,945 vehicles) and a decrease of 9.2 per cent. in pedal cycles (from 1,146 to 1,040).

ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES, HEBRIDES.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport when the road work in the west side of Lewis under the 1935 five-year road plan will begin?

Mr. Burgin: Work was commenced on the reconstruction of 11½ miles of road between Barvas and Ness on 5th October, 1937. The possibility of extending the reconstruction to other sections is under discussion with the Ross and Cromarty County Council.

Mr. MacMillan: Will this work come under the 100 per cent. grant?

Mr. Burgin: This work comes under the crofter-county scheme—not under the five-year plan.

Mr. MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport the number of local men employed in the Outer Isles road work under the five-year road plan and the number imported for the work from the mainland?

The average daily number of vehicles recorded at these points between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. during the census in August, 1938, compare with the figures in August, 1935, as under:

Mr. Burgin: In the quarter ending 31st December, 1938, the average number of local men employed was 311, and the average number imported from the mainland was 38.

ROAD SAFETY (MARYHILL, GLASGOW).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Transport the number of fatal road accidents in the Mary hill Division of Glasgow for the year ended October, 1937, and 1938, respectively?

Mr. Burgin: Eight persons were killed in road accidents in the Maryhill Police Division of Glasgow during each of the two years ended 31st October, 1937, and 1938, respectively.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Transport the number of new pedestrian crossings established in the Maryhill Division of Glasgow since October, 1937?

Mr. Burgin: Eleven new pedestrian crossings have been established in the Maryhill Division of Glasgow since October, 1937.

Mr. Davidson: Has the Minister any peculiar difficulties with the Glasgow Corporation or the officials with regard to the establishment of pedestrian crossings?

Mr. Burgin: I am not conscious of having any difficulty with any corporation.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the interests of road safety, any temporary measures will be taken with regard to the canal viaduct bridges in Maryhill, Glasgow, while the contemplated negotiations are proceeding?

Mr. Burgin: Negotiations with the railway company regarding the bridge scheme are proceeding satisfactorily. Boreholes are about to be sunk in order to obtain data required for the preparation of the design. It is hoped that the bridge works will be commenced before the end of this year. The footpath on the south side of the road does not continue under the bridge. For the safety of pedestrians crossing to the footpath on the north side, pedestrian crossing places are proposed to the east and west of the bridge. That on the west is already being laid down.

Mr. Davidson: Does that reply indicate that complete agreement has been reached between the various parties with regard to the alterations?

Mr. Burgin: So far as I know, yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (JEWISH CHILD REFUGEES, IMMIGRATION).

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that anti-Jewish discrimination persists in the German Reich; that the consequent environment is injurious to the rising generation of Jews and that Palestine is the natural refuge of persecuted Jewry; and whether, in light of these facts, he will now withdraw his refusal to allow 10,000 German-Jewish children to enter Palestine?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I cannot add anything at present to the answers which I gave on this matter on 14th December last.

Mr. Adams: As this is a matter of considerable urgency, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether these 10,000 children could not be admitted now, and an allowance made for this number in any future figure of Jewish immigration into Palestine?

Mr. MacDonald: The whole question of future immigration into Palestine is one of the most important subjects to be discussed at the Conference next week, and

we cannot anticipate what the result of those discussions may be.

Mr. Adams: My right hon. Friend does not suggest, does he, that 10,000 more Jews are not going to be admitted into Palestine in any case? Why, therefore, cannot these children be admitted now?

Mr. Mander: Will not the right hon. Gentleman take the earliest opportunity of bringing before the Conference, on humanitarian grounds, the possibility of allowing these 10,000 children to go in now?

Mr. MacDonald: I have already given an assurance that the Government will keep that possibility in mind. I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Leach: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of how many subjects he has now promised to keep in mind, and does he feel sure that his mind will stand the strain?

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (COCOA MARKETING).

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to implement the proposals of the Cocoa Commission for the creation of a West Africa cocoa growers marketing board?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The Commission's proposals for a Cocoa Farmers' Association for the collective marketing of cocoa referred only to the Gold Coast. The Governor has appointed a local committee to examine the draft scheme prepared by the Commission, and is now awaiting its report before sending his recommendations to me.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the suspension of the cocoa buyers' pool has been reflected in increased overseas trade in respect of each of the territories affected?

Mr. MacDonald: The immediate effect of the suspension of the merchants' cocoa buying agreements was to bring to an end the hold-up of cocoa by Gold Coast producers. With the release of purchasing power from sales of cocoa, the excessive stocks of imported merchandise which had accumulated during the dispute have been gradually worked off, and the latest figures show that the import trade is


beginning to function normally again. But while the prices of all West African produce, including cocoa, continue as low as at present, the import trade cannot be expected to recover to a satisfactory level.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA AND UGANDA (TIMBER EXPORTS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the quantities and values of the various types of timber exported from Tanganyika and Uganda, respectively; what merchantable

TANGANYIKA.


—
Cubic Feet.
Value.





£


Cedar (Juniperus procera)
…
2,850
570
(estimated).


Ebony (Dalbergia melanoxylon)
…
3,850
962
(estimated).


Mahogany (Khaya)
…
1,150
230
(estimated).


Iroko (Chlorophora excelsa)
…
70,450
15,476
(actual).


Sandalwood (Osyris tenuifolia)
…
7,350
1,470
(estimated).


Other sorts
…
28,500
4,418
(estimated).




Total Timber 114,150
Total Value £23,126


UGANDA.


—

Cubic Feet.
Value.



…

£


Logs, Mahogany
…
14,441
1,444



Mahogany
…
17,870
3,284



Iroko (Chlorophora excelsa)
…
32,098
7,685



Other sorts
…
16,678
1,732





Total Timber 81,087
Total Value £14,145

"Mahogany" includes the following species:

Munyama (Khaya anthotheca); Miovu, Mukusu, Mufumbi (Entandrophragma); Nkoba (Lovoa brownii).

"Other sorts" would include any of the following:

Light Hardwoods:

Musisi (Maesopsis eminii); Mujua (Alstonia cogensis); Musodo (Ricinodendron africanum); Nongo (Albizzia zygia).

Other Hardwoods:

Muhimbi (Cynometra alexandrii); Mukomakoma (Celtis).

Softwoods:

Podo (Podocarpus).

timbers are best suitable to be grown in these colonies; what efforts are being made to develop an overseas market in timbers from these colonies; and what timbers offer the best prospects for such trade?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the reply is necessarily long, I will, with the hon. and learned Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The quantities and values of timber exported from Tanganyika and Uganda during 1937 (the last year for which figures are available) were as follow:

The Forest Departments in Tanganyika and Uganda are continually experimenting with a view to determining the most suitable species of timbers with merchantable value which can be used in afforestation. Apart from the natural regeneration of the indigenous merchantable timbers, work is carried out in Uganda upon the regeneration of exploited forests and in schemes of reafforestation with Iroko (Chlorophora excelsa), Munyama (Khaya anthotheca), Mukusu (Entandrophragm anglense,) and Eucalypts (E. saligna and robusta.) In Tanganyika the species raised in the Forest Department nurseries are mainly Cedar, Podo, Olive, Eucalypts and Cypresses; these are used for reafforestation and also for the purpose of providing supplies of poles for building and fuel for


the native population. The Forest Products Research Laboratory at Princes Risborough co-operates with the Colonial Governments in testing timbers with a view to ascertaining their suitability for various purposes.

In Uganda an organisation, known as Uganda Timber Sales, Limited, has been set up with the assistance of Government for the purpose of acquiring stocks of timber for seasoning and developing markets. This organisation is financed by a cess upon timber cut from Government forests. The cess is paid into a fund which is administered by a committee consisting of representatives of the timber industry and the Government

In Tanganyika, however, emphasis is laid upon the development of the local market, which is now largely supplied by imports of timber from Kenya and Uganda. As the saw milling industry in Tanganyika is largely in the hands of small concerns the Government is making efforts, through the railway administration and other public departments, to show the producer and the consumer the advantages of using seasoned timber.

Uganda Timber Sales, Limited, is directing its attention to the export market as well as to the local market, and the Colonial Forest Resources Development Department in this country is co-operating in making known the various East African timbers to consumers in this country. Exhibits of East African timbers were displayed at the Empire Exhibitions in Johannesberg in 1936 and in Glasgow in 1938. As South Africa offers a large market for East African timbers, special efforts are being made to develop the market there.

The timbers considered to offer the best prospects for an overseas market are African blackwood (Dalborgia mela-noxylon), East African camphorwood (Ocotea usambarensis), East African pencil cedar (Juniperus procera), Iroko (Chlorophora excelsa), Mahogany (Khaya anthotheca), Mufumbi (Entandrophragma utile), Mukusu (Entandrophragama angolense) and East African Olive (Olea hochstetteri).

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (ANTI-AIR-CRAFT AND COAST-DEFENCE UNITS).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will within the next 12 months assume an

emergency is present and mobilise without previous warning the anti-aircraft and coast-defence units of the Territorial Army with a view of satisfying the people that the omissions which were disclosed in the crisis last September will not recur?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): Exercises are contemplated which will ensure that each element of the defence is fully conversant with the particular problems of deployment confronting it. Such exercises will form part of normal training, and will be carried out in as realistic conditions as possible.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the scheme which he has outlined will be sufficient to remove the fear on the part of people in this country that there may in the future be some inefficiency due to absence of equipment and organisation?

Sir V. Warrender: I should not care to give an answer to a hypothetical question of that kind, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the exercises will be realistic and will show the public that our air defences are becoming more and more efficient.

Mr. Bellenger: Have the omissions mentioned in the question now been remedied?

Mr. Davidson: The Minister has been removed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (DEMOLITION AND REBUILDING).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give favourable consideration to relieving local authorities of their statutory obligation to build houses to replace those demolished under slum-clearance schemes and overcrowding in districts where the percentage of houses of the appropriate type is in excess of 5 per cent. of the total?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): My right hon. Friend is not clear precisely what my hon. Friend has in mind, but he does not think there is any sufficient reason for altering the existing practice in this matter.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is my hon. Friend aware that local authorities are building houses under slum-clearance and over-


crowding schemes which are quite unnecessary by reason of the fact that there already exist large numbers of empty houses in the districts in question?

Mr. Bernays: No, Sir, I am not aware of that. My right hon. Friend, of course, considered the question on its merits. If my hon. Friend has any case in mind that he would like me to investigate, I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are very few empty houses for letting, but any number of empty houses for sale?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (GAS MASKS).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to specific instances of the wanton destruction of gas masks, issued at the public expense; and whether any steps have been taken to punish those responsible?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): One or two specific cases of improper treatment of respirators have been brought to my notice, and, as I indicated to the hon. Baronet on 22nd December, I am considering the position in connection with legislation which I hope to introduce shortly.

Sir J. Mellor: In view of the recent case which was withdrawn at Chesterfield on the ground that the gas masks had been given as a gift, and not as a loan to the public, will my right hon. Friend consider, in any legislation that may be introduced, inserting a declaratory Clause to the effect that all gas masks which have been issued to the public in the past are Government property?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Day: Do they not belong to the persons to whom they are given?

Mr. Lyons: Is my right hon. Friend of opinion, in view of the decision given at Chesterfield last week, that no statement by the Home Office can put the property in these gas masks back into the possession of the Government?

Sir J. Anderson: No decision was given at Chesterfield last week. The case was withdrawn.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a similar position does not arise with regard to the shelters in gardens that are going to be provided?

Mr. Lee: Was the case at Chesterfield withdrawn on the instructions of the Home Office?

Mr. Lyons: Was the case withdrawn on the police saying they were satisfied that, in the view of the Home Office, the property in the gas masks was in the persons to whom they were issued?

Sir J. Anderson: The Home Office were advised that it was very doubtful whether a prosecution could be sustained, and the chief constable, on being made aware of that, withdrew the prosecution.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that in one case a magistrate decided that, the gas masks having been destroyed, the people would not be able to get others free of charge?

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFETY IN MINES.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether it is intended to introduce legislation during this Session to deal with the Report of the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): The Government have given careful consideration during the Recess to this comprehensive and valuable report. Further time is required for the consideration in detail of each of the very numerous recommendations, but the Government accept the report in its general sense and purport, and will commence immediately to take the necessary steps towards implementing it.
In so far as this decision involves legislation, the necessary preparations for a Bill are being put in hand immediately, but such a Measure will necessarily be long and complicated, and I am afraid ft is not possible to have it ready for introduction this Session. Action will, however, be taken in the meantime with a view to a substantial strengthening and reorganisation of the Mines Inspectorate and the administrative services and I am also closely examining certain other of the Commission's recommendations to see how far they can be dealt with by way of regulation, or otherwise, under the existing powers where it is found practicable to do this without prejudice to, or confusion with, the impending legislation.
These reforms will involve expenditure that cannot be met within the statutory limitation imposed on the Mines Department Vote by the Mining Industry Act, 1920, and, as a necessary preliminary step, the Government propose to introduce shortly a Bill to remove that limit.
I may perhaps be allowed to add that the report calls attention to a number of improvements which it is possible for the industry to make on its own initiative, and I would, therefore, invite all concerned to see how far such recommendations can be implemented in advance of any legislation.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman reconsider the decision not to introduce the Bill this Session? Is he aware that there is a general feeling in the industry that the time is overdue when the Coal Mines Act should be brought up to date; and will he, therefore, press upon the Government the desirability of reconsidering that decision? Further, will he take an early opportunity of indicating to the House what part of the recommendations he proposes to adopt by regulation?

Captain Crookshank: I will, of course, consider the second point. As regards the first, I think that anybody who really studies this report, which runs to 500 pages and which has 179 main recommendations, in addition to almost double that number of subsidiary recommendations, will realise that there are very many difficult and complicated problems to be dealt with, and that, therefore, I cannot anticipate that the main legislation will be brought in very quickly. If the hon. Member, and other hon. Members, will be good enough to study the third paragraph of the reply I have given to-day, they will see that it is my intention to see what can be done in anticipation.

Mr. Lawson: Is not the Minister aware that the matter, for instance, of the training of boys is one of profound importance for the future; and will he not, before he stereotypes fresh methods by regulation, give an opportunity for discussion in the House?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot undertake to arrange time for discussion in the House, but the question in itself indicates the difficulty of rushing these matters.

There is a good deal of ground still to be explored.

Mr. David Grenfell: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider suggesting to the Government that the main Bill should not be delayed unduly, and is he not of opinion that he should give an assurance to the House, after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, that the Bill will not be delayed beyond next Session? Does he not think there is ample time, as he knows that all the preparatory work could be done before the next Session begins? Would he be able to answer a question on the matter in a few weeks' time?

Captain Crookshank: I have answered that. I said that the necessary preparations for the Bill are being immediately put in hand.

Mr. T. Smith: Does that mean that the Minister intends to submit to the various interests in the industry either the main outline of the Government's intention or certain specific things on which they intend to legislate or make regulations? In view of the fact that these recommendations are important to the industry, is it not essential that the country should know the Government's intention at an early date, either through a Bill or a White Paper?

Captain Crookshank: I am not prepared to go further than I have done in the reply I have given. If hon. Members will study the answer, they will see that we appreciate that this is a very important matter. The House can be assured that the Government have no intention of allowing any delay in this matter if it can be avoided, but many important questions have to be discussed and conversations have to take place with the interests concerned.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we have an assurance that the Government will resist any attempt on the part of coalowners to prevent legislation being introduced?

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman and the House must not assume that anybody in this country is going to resist any reasonable proposals which are going to be put forward. This is a unanimous report, and we had on the Committee representatives of all parts of the industry. It is a pity, if we are going to


deal with this most difficult problem in a harmonious spirit, that questions of that kind should be asked.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman, as it is within our knowledge, that the coal-owners have frequently resisted attempts to make changes in reference to safety legislation?

Captain Crookshank: As I have just said, I hope we are entering upon a new era as a result of this report.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (RELIEF).

Mr. Lyons: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, without anticipating his Budget statement and in view of concessions made with regard to renewals of machinery, he will now consider the practicability of granting relief to the smaller taxpayer, up to a certain percentage of his income, in respect of expenditure incurred in any future financial year in consequence of medical or surgical treatment necessitated by personal illness?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot see his way to adopt my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Lyons: In view of the great public interest in this matter, would the Chancellor consider representations on the matter before coming to a decision on his forthcoming Budget statement?

Captain Wallace: This proposal is, as I understand it, substantially the same as one which my right hon. Friend resisted on the last Finance Bill. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not think me egotistic if I ask him to refer to my own remarks on that occasion.

Mr. Lyons: While bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend said last year, I would ask, is it not a fact that what he said gave ground for hope that the matter would be reconsidered this year?

Captain Wallace: I do not think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (FINGER PRINTS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now consider

bringing in regulations as regards stamping on passports, alongside the signature, the print of the right thumb of the holder of the passport, solely for the purpose of identification when travelling abroad?

Mr. Butler: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 30th November last. I would add that my Noble Friend is by no means satisfied that the results to be expected from the inclusion of thumb or finger prints on passports would be in any way commensurate with the inconvenience and annoyance to applicants for passport facilities.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of further developments, perhaps my right hon. Friend will be kind enough to have a word with me a little later on?

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman give very serious consideration to the question of withdrawing passports altogether?

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Prime Minister what Government or authority is recognised by His Majesty's Government in those parts of Ethiopia where fighting still continues?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have recognised Italian rule de jure and de facto over the whole of Ethiopia.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether the Abyssinian refugees now temporarily located in British territories are to be allowed to settle there; or whether, following the recognition of Italian sovereignty over Abyssinia, they are to be regarded as Italian citizens and sent back to Abyssinia?

Mr. Butler: In answer to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies to a question by the hon. Member for Leyton, West (Mr. Sorensen) on 29th November, 1937. As regards the second part, I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to the future disposal of these refugees. As the Secretary of State for the Colonies assured the House on 15th June, none of these refugees will be sent back to Abyssinia against their own will.

Captain Cazalet: Does my right hon. Friend expect the expense of these refugees to be borne entirely by the British Government?

Mr. Butler: I think that is a question that ought to be put down.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Are these Abyssinian refugees to be considered now as Italian citizens?

Mr. Butler: I think that is purely a matter of conjecture.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY EMPLOYES, MALTA AND GIBRALTAR.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of men employed by the Admiralty at Malta and Gibraltar in January, 1938, and January, 1939; and what reduction in the working week has taken place during the last 12 months?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): The numbers of workmen employed by the Admiralty at Malta and Gibraltar on Monday, 3rd January, 1938, and Monday, 2nd January, 1939, respectively, were as follow:


Malta
…
7,903 and 9,330


Gibraltar
…
1,662 and 1,840


There has been no reduction in the working week at either establishment during the last 12 months.

Mr. Gibson: Has such a reduction been under consideration?

Mr. Shakespeare: No, Sir. Dockyard hours are the same at home and abroad.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. R. Gibson: (for Mr. Kelly) asked the Minister of Health the number of men and women in Lancashire on old age pension who are forced to public assistance to supplement their pension?

Mr. Bernays: On 1st January, 1939, the latest date for which particulars are available, there were 11,000 old age pensioners in the Administrative County of Lancaster who were in receipt of poor relief.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister recommend to the Chancellor an increase in old age pensions?

Oral Answers to Questions — COCOA (STORAGE).

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to aiding the trade of the colonies and home defence, he has placed cocoa upon the list of commodities to be stored for war emergency requirements?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) on 20th December.

Mr. Turton: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are plenty of drinks produced at home to tide us over an emergency?

Mr. Day: Will this question be referred to the committee mentioned earlier this afternoon?

Mr. Cross: I should require notice of that question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Patronage Secretary whether he has any announcement to make with regard to the alteration of Business To-morrow?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): Yes, Sir, we propose to vary the order of Business announced for consideration To-morrow, which will now be as follows:
Second Reading of the Census of Production Bill [Lords];
Committee stage of the Export Guarantees Bill;
Consideration of the Motion relating to Members' Pensions, and of the
Motion for an Address for the appointment of Additional Judges.
If there is time, we also propose to take the Second Reading of the Limitation Bill [Lords].

Sir P. Harris: Will there be a free vote on the Motion with regard to Members' Pensions?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

EDUCATION IN COMMERCE.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall


ask the House to consider two reports—the Spens Report and the Report of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce on the Employment of Students who take Degrees in Commerce, and move a Resolution.

DISSEMINATION OF NEWS.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Dissemination of News, and move a Resolution.

AIR-RAID EVACUATION ARRANGEMENTS.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the arrangements to be made for the reception of those evacuated from the towns to rural areas in times of crisis, and move a Resolution.

NATIONAL PARKS.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to National Parks, and move a Resolution.

BILLS PRESENTED.

CZECHOSLOVAKIA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL,

"to authorise the Treasury to repay to the Bank of England sums advanced by that Bank to the National Bank of Czechoslovakia together with interest thereon, and to enable effect to be given to an agreement made between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic and to an agreement made between His Majesty's said Government, the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Captain Wallace and Mr. Butler; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

CURRENCY AND BANK NOTES BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to the Issue Department of the Bank of England, the Exchange Equalisation Account and the issue and place of payment of Bank of England notes," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Captain Wallace; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Bellenger, and Mr. Thomas; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Harvey, Mr. Messer, and Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Criminal Justice Bill): Mr. Kelly; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Silkin.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That Mr. Snadden, being a Member representing a Scottish constituency, is added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills under Standing Order No. 47 (2).

Reports to lie upon the Table.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

3.33 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I beg to move,
That, being of the opinion that the existing inequalities in the burden of public assistance, due to exceptional distress in some areas and comparative prosperity in others, constitute an anomaly calling for redress, this House would welcome a measure to spread the burden more equally over the whole country.
The content of my Motion has, possible in different words, been considered by the House on very many occasions in the past, and the House, during at least the last ten years, has recognised that areas which have suffered widespread and longstanding unemployment ought not to be left to bear entirely the financial and social consequences of such a burden. It is also largely accepted that the consequences of unemployment in the form of high public assistance rates, the reduction of rateable values, the partial stagnation of improvements in social amenities, and the physical deterioration of men, women and children, have all neutralised to a considerable degree the efforts that have been, and are still being made to rehabilitate the distressed areas. This was very well and very strongly stated by Sir Malcolm Stewart, one of the Commissioners at one time for the Special Areas. In his third report Sir Malcolm Stewart tells us that:
Local authorities in these Areas should be in a position, without any special Government assistance, to carry out schemes of urgent necessity on grounds of public health, and indeed other schemes, which, though not so urgently necessary, would improve the amenities of their districts and help to attract new industries. At present this is impossible, and the primary reasons are:

(a) a diminishing rateable value, owing to declining industry and dwindling population;
(b) an increasing burden of public assistance.

Both these reasons are due to economic causes outside the control of the Areas, namely, the decline in the heavy industries which have always been their mainstay. Inasmuch as the cause is national or international, the Areas have a clear justification for claiming that relief should be given on a national basis, and that their excess burden of expenditure on public assistance should he reduced to the national average. This, it will be remembered, was also the conclusion reached in 1934 by Captain Euan Wallace"—
now the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—
after his thorough investigation into conditions in Durham and Tyneside, but the matter still waits to be dealt with.

There is a great deal more which we from the distressed areas would gladly quote from that splendid report, and I would like to draw the attention of the House to what Sir Malcolm Stewart states in pages 68 to 71 of that most painstaking and revealing report which he submitted to the Government. What he stated in 1936 has been proved to be absolutely correct. He also made reference to the shortcomings of the block grant formula, and it is now admitted, even by the present Government, and, I assume, by very many of their supporters, that the block grant failed very largely indeed to meet the legitimate needs and demands of the Special Areas. I am, frankly, at a loss to know where the Mover of the proposed Amendment and his supporters have derived their apparently profound faith in the block grant. The Government, of whom the supporters of the Amendment are such ardent adherents, have on more than one occasion recognised the profound shortcomings of the block grant formula. That has been shown in the financial provisions laid down in the Special Areas Act, and the Midwives Act, and also it has been shown in the grouping of authorities in accordance with the ratio of weighted to actual population which was adopted by the Ministry of Transport for the purpose of improvement and ribbon development grants from the Road Fund. I will content myself with those references, although I could mention others. I am, however, anxious to give opportunity for many of my hon. Friends from both sides of the House to take part in the Debate.
The Government have admitted in more than one way that the block grant formula no longer applies, and cannot give that full meed of justice to which the Special Areas are entitled. Sir Malcolm Stewart was correct when he said that the taking over from the public assistance committees of the able-bodied unemployed would not solve this problem. I have read the report of the Debate that took place in this House on the introduction of the Unemployment Act, 1934. On that occasion the Government adopted an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland at that time, Sir Luke Thompson, which had the support of 384 supporters of the Government. I was not a Member of the House at that time, but like many others living in the distressed areas I watched


this matter very anxiously. We were all tremendously pleased when we read in the Press and the OFFICIAL REPORT that such a Motion had been adopted by the Government. The Resolution which was passed was:
That this House resolves that responsibility for assistance to all able-bodied unemployed not over 65 years of age should he accepted by the Government, with such readjustment in financial relations between the Exchequer and the local authorities as is reasonable, having special regard of the necessities of distressed areas.
The whole House at that time distinctly understood that the Government would assume complete financial responsibility for the whole cost of the able-bodied unemployed then under the public assistance committees. Sir Luke Thompson, whose Amendment was accepted by the Government, said:
The able-bodied unemployed will be taken over by the State and the cost of their maintenance discharged by the State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1933; cols. 2636–7, Vol. 276.]
It is most regrettable that the promise made that day and accepted by the overwhelming majority of the House has not been carried out. What is the position? Public assistance committees, even those in the most distressed areas, have been compelled to make a contribution under the Act to the Unemployment Assistance Board equal to three-fifths of the expenditure on the able-bodied unemployed. This provision has operated with extreme harshness on the distressed areas with the highest degree of distress. It has operated also very largely in continuing the system which, by implication, was condemned by Parliament prior to the passing of the Unemployment Act, 1934.
My Motion, admittedly, goes further than this aspect of the burden on public assistance. It asks that the serious inequalities in the burden of public assistance, inequalities caused by unemployment, should be removed. This could be done largely in one of two ways. The expenditure of public assistance should be equated all over the country, or the whole of public assistance should become a national charge. Let me take the first method suggested. This is not a question of rich or well-placed authorities assisting the distressed areas. During the post-war depression the distressed areas, in their misfortune, have richly assisted

the more prosperous parts of the country. Recently, with the assistance of persons who are greater experts on this subject than myself, I have tried to calculate in pounds, shillings and pence the magnitude of the contributions made by the distressed areas to the most prosperous areas during post-war years.
It has been stated, not merely on this side of the House, but from the Government Front Bench, that Merthyr Tydfil itomises the worst excesses of unemployement in our distressed areas. As that is a district which is naturally known to me. I have used Merthyr Tydfil as an example to give the House an indication of how richly we of the distressed areas have endowed the more prosperous areas. During the last 20 years more than 20,000 persons have, perforce, because of unemployment, left Merthyr Tydfil. My hon. Friends from the other distressed areas will perhaps be making comparable calculations while I quote certain figures to the House. The 20,000 persons who left that poor county borough have been mostly young men and young women. If I fix their average age at about 20 years I shall not be far wrong. What has been the monetary value of these young men and young women to the more prosperous areas where they have gone?
In 20 years, Merthyr Tydfil spent on those 20,000 persons, in the provision of social amenities, such as housing, health services, education, sanitation, water supply and so on, in the creating and sustaining of health and cultural environment, £1,400,000. That has come from the local funds and has been a charge on local expenditure. Further, on the modest assumption that each of those 20,000 persons costs 10s. per week to their parents to rear them to the age of 20 years, we get a sum of £,10,400,000, making a total of £11,800,000 spent in that locality from the rates, which are obtained from the people and from the earnings of those who may have been fortunate enough to be in employment. But that is not the whole story by a very long way. Assimilated in the personality of these young men and women are the cultural effects of many churches and chapels in that district and other voluntary institutions and organisations. Such influence cannot be capitalised in pounds, shillings and pence, nor can the influence of the open rugged life of such an industrial community be capitalised.
We know from experience gathered throughout the long depression that these old industrialised communities produce a type of young man and woman with exceptional aptitude—I emphasise the point—for labour of many kinds. This is probably the result of generations of creative work in these areas. I contend that this is some indication of how misfortune has compelled our areas richly to endow the more prosperous parts of our land. This is a profound human problem, and I should like hon. Members to consider the care exercised, the sacrifices so uncomplainingly made, the hard struggle so bravely faced by the parents of these young men and women, the devotion of so many public-spirited men and women in these areas who are working as religious and social workers, the teachers in the schools and the local government representatives and many others. All this great work and devotion are absorbed into the young lives of tens of thousands who have left these stricken areas to the enormous advantage of the more prosperous towns and cities in the land. My Motion is an appeal that some small recompense be now made to us in return. We have under the stress of cruel circumstances poured into the more fortunate areas the greatest of all our gifts; we have given that which is incomparably dearest to us in life to the areas of those hon. Members who support the Amendment—we have given them our children. We appeal to the House to respond to the pleadings of those who are left to bear a burden not of their own making. Prior to the depression these areas in coal, iron and steel, textiles and shipbuilding, contributed most to the greatness of our country and our Empire.
In regard to my second alternative, that the whole of public assistance should become a national charge, I will immediately, in anticipation, face the old question which, I admit, has worried us in the past. When we have made demands of this kind we have been asked whether if public assistance becomes a national charge we are prepared to hand over the administration of these unfortunate people to persons appointed by the State. To put it more correctly, the question now is: Would you bring these people within the tender mercies of the Unemployment Assistance Board? We are prepared to face that question. Frankly, there is no

reason why it should worry us any longer. In the first place, the Unemployment Assistance Board could never administer the lives of these poor people without adding enormously to its present—I say it deliberately—appalling cost of administration. To hon. Members opposite who always put this question may I draw their attention to the last report of the Unemployment Assistance Board? Last year the Board spent no less than £,4,680,000 in mere administrative costs, and made a profit of £157,000 and this after taking into consideration widows' and orphans' pensions, old age pensions, pensions for the blind, ex-service men's pensions, compensation to injured workmen and public assistance.
Would any Government add to the huge cost of the Unemployment Assistance Board the administration of the pathetic lives of these people, so many of whom are old and decrepit, many of them young children, others mentally deficient, or sick, maimed or injured? Would any Government forego the vast reservoir of devoted men and women whose willing and splendid services on our public assistance committees have contributed so magnificently to making our local government the admiration of the world? I do not think so, and I have no fear that if public assistance becomes a national charge any Government would be only too pleased to avail itself of the many men and women who give so much of their leisure time in looking after the poor and distressed in the country. Rigid scales of payment are drawn up for the guidance of public assistance committees. I know that well from personal experience. I have here a copy of the maximum scales laid down for the poor in Merthyr Tydfil and every figure and regulation in regard to payment of Poor Law relief has been criticised and approved by the Minister. We dare not go above the scale because we have no resources.
Let me give another picture of these areas. The number in receipt of Poor Law relief per 10,000 of the population for England and Wales is 266. For the county of Durham it is 645; for Glamorganshire, 624; and for Monmouthshire, 494. If you take some of the worst county boroughs you get figures like these: Manchester, 461; Barnsley, 504; St. Helens, 522; Gateshead, 539; Rotherham, 540; Hull, 589; Lincoln, 619; Bootle, 647;


Sunderland, 688; Liverpool, 723; Merthyr Tydfil, 879. I must commend to the supporters of the Amendment the great contribution that each one of the places I have mentioned has made to the building up of the greatness of our country. All those places have a high percentage of unemployment and consequently high public assistance rates, reaching, I regret to say, the peak figure of 15s. 9d. in the £ at Merthyr Tydfil. I would express the hope that if the Government cannot immediately accept either of the principles I have mentioned, something should immediately be done to ease the intolerable burden of public assistance in these worst hit areas.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: I beg to second the Motion.
At the outset I want to say that I do not think I have ever supported a proposal that in my view contained so much justice as that which my hon. Friend has just put before the House. Because of the comprehensive way in which he has dealt with the problem and the possibility of some of my colleagues having particular points to place before the House, I do not propose to say very much. But I would refer briefly to the Amendment. It mentions the block grant. The Motion, however, deals with a specific burden upon local authorities, namely, the upkeep of the poor persons in their localities. I would like at the beginning to point out that so far as the factors that are used to determine the block grant are concerned, poor relief is not one of those factors at all, and in view of that fact the Amendment has little to do with the subject-matter of the Motion.
It must be admitted that since the earliest time, when poverty displayed itself and Statutes were directed towards its alleviation, the local authorities or the communities were deemed to be the persons responsible for the alleviation, and I think it can be argued that in some measure at least the local authorities were capable of so modifying their communal life that the incidence of unemployment would be up or down. But I do not think that that can be held to apply to-day. I think the incidence of unemployment to the public in general to-day is accepted as more connected with national conditions than with local

conditions; and because of that it is not surprising that the House of Commons accepted the statement referred to by my hon. Friend, when on 12th April, 1933, the House resolved that responsibility for assistance to all able-bodied unemployed not over 65 years of age should be accepted by the Government. Many local authorities looked with great hope to that expression of opinion, and naturally they were greatly perturbed when the Unemployment Assistance Bill of 1934 displayed that the hopes they had in 1933 were not going to materialise. Since then Members on this side of the House, and, I presume, on the other side, have been telling perturbed constituents that come to them that they were in a category contained in the formula "outwith scope." That in Scotland means a burden £400,000 a year, and so far as Glasgow is concerned it has to bear the burden of half that sum, or a rate of 4½d. in the £. That is an unfair burden for a city such as Glasgow to be expected to bear.
There are one or two details of some importance that I shall mention. It is not to be supposed that even those who are "within scope" are being attended to as they should be by the Government, for so far as medical requirements are concerned the local authorities still have to find those requirements, and not only the medical requirements and the details of administration but actually a medical certificate is required to work the Unemployment Assistance Board's scheme. In Glasgow in one year they had to issue no fewer than 39,520 medical certificates to work the Unemployment Assistance Board's scheme, and not a halfpenny came back to them in recompense. I admit that it was a desirable thing to remove the stigma associated with the Poor Law, as far as it could be done, but the mere fact of removing it created its own difficulties. By virtue of the fact that persons in poverty had not to apply to a Poor Law authority but to a different body called the public assistance authority, their reluctance to go for poor relief was removed to some extent. I am not expressing a laymen's opinion on the matter because the Board of Health itself has the report of its own inspectors, who have admitted that because of the removal of the Poor Law aspect of the matter the number of people asking for help has increased.
There are other incidents to which I want to refer. I am speaking specifically with regard to statutory requirements. The Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1934, requires local authorities to ignore the first £1 of disability pension to ignore 7s. 6d. of health benefit and in addition the first 5s. of any benefit received from a voluntary society. Those are statutory requirements and they are imposed on the local authorities. But the Government having imposed these things on the authorities, make no grant towards the burden they so create. Therefore we are not making any high claim on the Government in asking them to spread the burden which they have imposed. In Glasgow this statutory requirement is equal to 4d. in the £ on the rates. It must be admitted that considerable numbers of the able-bodied unemployed were transferred to the Unemployment Assistance Board. On 1st April, 1937, in Glasgow the number transferred was 85.2 per cent.; that still left 14.8 per cent., and notwithstanding the great burden of the 85 per cent. being taken off, the reduced figure of 14.8 per cent. actually cost the public assistance department no less than £200,000 per annum. The movement of this type of unemployment is of interest. In 1921, under the Poor Law, the able-bodied unemployed were 21.7 per thousand of the population; in 1930 the figure was 32.7; and in 1937 it was no less than 82.9 per thousand of the population, and Glasgow cannot be held responsible for that state of affairs.
There are one or two things that the Government might examine as a means of dealing with the difficulty. Take old age pensions. One of the strange things about rates and taxes is that all the kudos with regard to pensions is directed towards the State machine; no reference is made to what has been done by the ratepayers. What are the facts in Glasgow? The Government contributes 10s. per week for old age pensions for old persons. The year to which I refer is 1936–37. In Glasgow old age pensioners received in that year £365,131. But from the public assistance committees, in augmentation of the pensions, there was paid £355,186. But that did not end it. They had to have medical requirements issued to them, and clothing. That cost £15,000. So that Glasgow is directing from the ratepayers to the old age pensioners that large sum and getting no recognition for it. Then take National

Health Insurance. In the year I have referred to, the approved societies paid in benefit £183,000; but the public assistance department had to pay £453,000 to these people who were ill, and to their dependants. In the case of widows' pensions, the amount received by widows in the year to which I have referred was £178,000, but that sum was augmented to the extent of £108,000 from the ratepayers' money. Orphans received £6,300, and that sum was augmented from public assistance by £1,700. The sacred pensions paid to those men who jeopardised their lives in the Great War—disability pensions—amounted to £24,000 in the case of Glasgow, but the corporation had to augment them by a sum of no less than £21,000. Those people served the State, but their pensions had to be augmented by the local authority.
I charge the Government not to lose sight of the fact that these are Government responsibilities, and as the administrative machinery of the State gets all the praise for the pensions, the Government are duty bound, in recognising those responsibilities, to bear the full burden of them. Although the measures suggested in the Motion might not be acceptable, there are many other ways by which the Government could remove the inequalities that have been so eloquently referred to in detail by my hon. Friend who moved the Motion. If the Government followed the course we desire, it would in my opinion redound to the advantage of the local authorities, and would in addition show that the Government were prepared to concede that in ordinary justice these charges should be met nationally.

4.18 p.m.

Sir Gifford Fox: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That", to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House welcomes the efforts of His Majesty's Government to spread the burden of local taxation more equally over the whole country, especially by means of the re-allocation of the block grant, to the advantage of the more necessitous areas.
I am sure the whole House was deeply moved by that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) in which he referred to the tragedy of the constituency that he represents. The hon. Member told us how some 20,000 young men, probably the


best, have left that constituency and gone to other areas. Some of them have come to my constituency and found good employment there, and some of them, fortunately, have been able to get their parents to come and live with them. The hon. Member told us of the great expenditure that had been incurred by Merthyr Tydfil in providing social services, houses, health services and education, and so on, in the past, but I may also add that that problem also arises in the case of the local authorities in my area, since they have had to build new housing estates, and to supply health facilities, social services, and all the other things that a new community requires. Therefore, although a great deal of money was spent in this direction in Merthyr Tydfil, there is also a cost involved to the local authorities in other areas to which the people have gone.
We cannot consider this matter only from the sentimental point of view. Many hon. Members regard the Amendment which I have moved as one of great importance. The Motion affects the root and foundation of our local government system. The hon. Member mentioned in his speech two ways in which the Motion could be carried out, either by the poor relief being taken over completely by the national Exchequer, or by a rate that would be equated throughout the whole country; in other words, instead of the Government trying to equalise the burden as it does now through the block-grant system, and by its long-term policy of helping the distressed areas, the ratepayers throughout the country should submit to a level rate in respect to the particular service of poor relief. I remember that in the old days there was a photographic advertisement of a man holding forth on behalf of a charitable organisation and proclaming quite candidly, "It's your money we want." I believe that is the underlying request of the Motion. The people who live in what are called the more prosperous areas may perhaps think that the good condition of their local finances is due to good government, and they may also think that other areas which are not so fortunate and whose finances are not so good, are in that state because of a policy of extreme Socialist finance.
The scheme of the hon. Member who moved the Motion would revolutionise our

system of local government. It would cut across the whole principle of self-government, namely, that there should be no taxation without representation. Under that scheme, money would he raised by one local authority in one part of the country and would be spent by another local authority far away. For instance, the money might be raised in Kent, and the people there would have no knowledge as to where the money was to be spent, they would have no control over its spending, and they would not know whether it was to be administered by a local authority which they would regard as efficient. Naturally, the ratepayers in the area where the money was raised would not be pleased if they did not know how the money was to be spent, why it was to be spent, or whether it would be economically spent. I feel that all hon. Members have great and deep sympathy with the ratepayers, even more so than with the taxpayers, because the ratepayers have to meet their assessment whether their business is successful or not, whereas the taxpayers have to pay only on profits. Under the scheme proposed in the Motion, the sole purpose is to make the ratepayer the milch cow. All he would have to do would be to pay.
If the Motion were adopted, undoubtedly it would take away local interest from local government, which has been such a great feature in our country. It has always been the aim of the House to maintain our local government system as efficiently as possible. Looking back into the past, we see how the House has gradually enlarged the area of chargeability for public assistance. In the old days, it was the parish which had to look after poor relief, but it was found that the parish was not a large enough unit, and in 1834 there was the union of parishes. Later, in 1929, the local Government Act abolished the Boards of Guardians, and the unit became the county or county borough. It may be said that in some cases the area of chargeability is still too small, and that some county borough areas are smaller than the former union areas. Even though things may not be perfect at present, however, it is far from clear that the next step ought to be to make the ratepayers of Kent pay through the medium of local rates for the relief afforded to persons who may be living in Pembrokeshire. I was brought up on


the old saying that, "The man who pays the piper should call the tune"; but in this case the piper would play exactly what tune he liked and take your money for doing it.
I suggest that such a proposal would encourage a large amount of "squander-mania." Local authorities would have handed to them moneys, which had not been raised in their areas, but in other areas. They would have every encouragement to spend more, especially as they would know that the people who had to pay the money would not be able to say whether they liked it or not at the next municipal election. Again, any increase in the level of expenditure on poor relief in a given district would be masked by the fact that the contributions would come from larger areas. I think all sense of responsibility and integrity would inevitably be weakened. It is easy to say, when it comes to spending money, "Our proportion of the expenditure will be only such and such an amount; the rest of the local authorities have got to pay a big amount; let us immediately approve the expenditure." I also think that even those local authorities which would have to find the money, but would not benefit from it, might tend to become less efficient, and relax control over their own expenditure, because they would feel that the dice was loaded against them and that it was no good their being economical and not doing what they might like to do in their own areas. They might feel that if a large amount of money was to be taken away from them, they might just as well spend more themselves in providing the things they wanted.
I feel that every endeavour should be made not to spend more money, but to protect the pockets of the people. It is always very easy to spend other people's money. We have had painful instances of this in the past. The House will remember how local authorities spent money from the Exchequer in making transitional payments to those unemployed who had ceased to be entitled to Unemployment Insurance benefits. This experiment shows that while most authorities acted with prudence and discretion when asked, in difficult circumstances, to operate as agents for the Government, there was a substantial minority who were grossly extravagant when it came to handing out national funds.
Therefore, it seems only logical and clear from past experience that the authorities who seek to pass on some of their burdens to others who are more happily situated, should be subjected to some form of central control. I often wonder, when people lightheartedly suggest this, whether they realise that some such control would be necessary. The imposition of such a control would present difficult problems which would have to be solved if the administration was to be efficiently carried on. Not only might there be drastic control, but there might even have to be a suppression of local authorities. If you are going to obtain or raise money without submitting your programme to the electors, you might as well have the local authorities run from Whitehall. Perhaps that is the idea, to socialise everything. I have heard it suggested by some hon. Members opposite that they would like to suppress the sittings of Parliament and allow the country to be more or less run in the form of a dictatorship.
Now I would like to show what the Government are doing. The Local Government Act, 1928, modified the financial arrangements between the Exchequer and the local authorities and the Government introduced what was known as the block grant system of State subvention. This was worked out on a very careful formula, which tried to balance the different burdens between different parts of the country. The formula is based on the volume of unemployment in the area, the number of children, the rateable value of the district, the density of population and various other factors. The grant is based on the balance of need and is quinquennial. It is revised every five years and if local authorities find that circumstances have changed in their areas they are able to set out their grievances and difficulties at the end of the quinquennial period and have the grant readjusted. Since the passing of the Act it has twice been adjusted. The third quinquennial period started on 1st April, 1937, and the national block grant pool was increased from £43,922,000 to £46,172,000. That means to say that the third quinquennial period finds an extra £2,250,000 in the pool.
The local authorities were also helped by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, which relieved local authorities of contributions in respect of the assistance


of certain classes of able-bodied unemployed, costing £2,180,000. Thus local authorities have benefited in two ways—by the increased block grant of £2,250,000 and by the saving of £2,180,000, or nearly £4,500,000 altogether. In addition, the 1937 Act provided for a revision of the method of distributing the block grant. It was realised that increased assistance was necessary for the poorer areas and to meet this need, the factor of unemployment statistics in the formula was strengthened.

Mr. A. Jenkins: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the block grant, may I point out to him something which ought to be within his own knowledge? It is true that as a result of the last quinquennial revision certain increases under the formula accrued to certain areas, namely, those which are most heavily hit by unemployment and other factors. But is the hon. Member not aware of the fact that the revised grant having been in operation for approximately a year, many of these authorities have already lost all the advantage which accrued to them under the revision of the block grant? In view of that fact, does he still pretend that the block grant system is a means by which the problems of local government in the Special Areas can be solved?

Sir G. Fox: I still maintain that the block grant is the best method, and, as I have said it can be revised every five years. I wish to show how certain areas have benefited under the block grant system and what the increase has been in the period 1937–38, which is the first year of the third grant period, compared with the previous year, which was the last year of the second grant period. Cumberland, for instance, gets a contribution from the block grant of 12s. 8d. in the £, an increase of some 2s., in 1937–38, compared with the previous year. Again, Merthyr Tydfil gets 14s. 3d. in the £ under the block grant, which is an increase of 5s. 3.9d. in 1937–38 compared with the previous year.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give the aggregate rate in Merthyr Tydfil as that is the only way to set the correct proportions? If he has not got the figure perhaps I may give it. It is 27s. 6d. in the £.

Sir G. Fox: I am obliged to the hon. Member but I am pointing out how

Merthyr Tydfil has benefited as a result of the revision of the block grant. There are other areas which are looked upon as more prosperous, where the figures are very different. Surrey's contribution from the block grant is only 1s. 1d. in the £, which is an increase during the same period of just under 1¾d. I could give other figures to show that the poor areas have benefited as a result of the revision of the block grant at the end of the last quinquennial period. In short, there are two ways in which the problem can be approached. One is by the system which has been adopted and is now working and in which adjustments have already been made. The other is that indicated in the somewhat vague proposals submitted in the Motion. I respectfully suggest that the proposals contained in the Motion are both nebulous and insufficiently thought out, and, as I have shown, they would inevitably lead to extravagance and waste. No case has been made out for revolutionising the system of local government in a way which, in my humble judgment, would result in abuse, waste and squandermania.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Trevor Cox: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to add one or two arguments to those which have been used by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox). First, I would say that I am sure the House has listened with great attention and interest to the very able and sincere speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies). We know that he is anxious to do everything possible to help those people who are, unfortunately, without work. That, I believe, is a desire common to hon. Members in every part of the House. From his speech I gathered that his proposed scheme means that there should be a pooling of the rateable value of all local authorities and a calculation of the total of all the local requirements for public assistance. An equal rate poundage would then be levied in each rating area throughout the country, and the total amount brought in would be distributed according to local requirements. The scheme, I understand, would equalise the burden of public assistance on a national scale and is designed to do so. This would mean that ratepayers in one part of the country would have to assist other areas perhaps a long


distance off, and would have no control over the money which they themselves had raised. This is an entirely new suggestion, and is contrary to the existing system, which is that local moneys are raised for local needs. As my hon. Friend has said, this would mean a radical change in the existing system of local government.
The Mover of the Motion did not tell us whether a majority of local authorities were in favour of this scheme. We had no evidence from him that large numbers of local authorities were anxious that this scheme should be put into operation. If it be the case, that there is not a majority of local authorities in favour of the scheme, surely it would be against all democratic principles to force such a scheme upon them. It has been suggested that the area of chargeability for public assistance purposes should be broadened. The 1929 Local Government Act broadened the area of chargeability for public assistance purposes. The original area was the parish; then came the union of parishes and now, since 1930, the area is the county or county borough. Some of the areas may be too small, but is the next logical step to make the ratepayers of Cheshire, for example, pay for the relief of persons living in Glamorgan? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I ask hon. Members whether they think that that is the next logical step to take. Some authorities might welcome the scheme in the hope that it would bring them advantages. They would be spending other authorities' money, and it might easily be the case that this scheme would lead to high rates and would hamper industrial and commercial development, which is the last thing any of us wish to see. I am sure the Mover of the Motion is himself anxious to see industrial and commercial development proceed rapidly in all areas so that large numbers of unemployed can be reabsorbed in industry.
It might happen that some local authorities under such a scheme as this would show a certain lack of responsibility when carrying out this financially unsound procedure. There might be extravagant expenditure which would be temporarily concealed, as the cost would be spread over all rating authorities. That is a serious disadvantage in the hon. Member's proposal. We have to remember that when Exchequer funds were ex-

pended by local authorities on transitional benefit payments to unemployed persons in the past, some authorities were extravagant with national funds. It is highly undesirable that anything of that nature should occur again especially at a time when we are most anxious to husband the nation's financial resources for reasons which will be appreciated by all. Under this scheme there would be a certain measure of outside control over authorities which were being relieved by other and more prosperous authorities. It is clear that the latter would insist on such a check. There are, moreover, many administrative difficulties involved in central control. Equalisation, as advocated by hon. Members opposite, would mean more rigid control from the centre and this might not be desired by some local authorities. Under the scheme, existing public assistance authorities would not continue as at present, with the addition of a subsidy from other areas. The public assistance committee of Merthyr, for example, might be glad that 75 per cent. of the money which they were spending on relief was being raised by other areas but other local authorities might not take the same view.
For those reasons I oppose the Motion, but there is another side to the question, namely, the financial side. There have been three changes which have given considerable assistance to the poorer areas. Hon. Members opposite have suggested that something should have been done in the past and that something should be done now to help the poorer areas. The 1937 Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act fixed the general Exchequer contribution at about £46,000,000 a year, instead of £43,300,000, which was the previous figure. It also relieved local authorities of responsibilities relating to the relief of certain classes of able-bodied unemployed which cost £2,000,000 a year. So, it will be seen that those authorities have gained something like £4,370,000 a year. The poorer areas also gained by the revision of the formula for distributing the Exchequer contribution among the authorities. That revision, which was agreed to by all parties, strengthened the factor which is based on unemployment statistics, and in that way assisted the poorer areas.
I would like to give one or two examples to show clearly how the poorer areas were assisted. The total estimated


gain for the poorer areas in the first year of the third fixed grant period as compared with the preceding year was as follows in each case: £220,000; Glamorgan, £233,000; Liverpool and Sunderland, £434,000 and £118,000 respectively. On the other hand, the Home Counties and other residential boroughs, which are necessarily more prosperous, gained in the case of Hertford only £58,000, in the case of Bath £1,200, and Hastings £2,600. That shows that considerable assistance was given by the 1937 Act to the poorer areas. With regard to total gains, necessitous and Special Area counties as a whole gained about £1,000,000, and distressed or Special Area county boroughs gained about £1,200,000, whereas, on the other hand, residential county boroughs gained only about £130,000.
In conclusion, I wish to make one or two remarks on the general problem of unemployment. As the hon. Member said, this is indeed in many cases a very human and a very tragic question. We want to see everything possible done to help those who, through no fault of their own, lack work. We want to see them back again at their former trades, with a greater measure of security and happiness for themselves and their families and earning at the same time as good wages as industry can pay. Therefore, let us continue in our firm determination to bring the sunlight of life into those homes now darkened by the sorrows of unemployment.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: No one who heard the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion can have any doubt that we are confronted with a very serious problem, and a problem which hitherto has not been solved in any way. I do not want to go through the case that they made, because I am sure it must have impressed every Member of the House who listened to it. I listened with very great care to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, in the hope that, if they did not agree with the proposal put forward in the Motion, at least they would have some alternative proposal to put before this House for dealing with this admittedly serious problem, but beyond an expression of congratulation to the Government on

what they have already done, which admittedly has not met the problem, I could find not a single word suggesting that they have a solution. What is the issue before the House? The real issue is whether the care of the poor should be a matter for the locality alone or whether it is a national responsibility, and I submit that there can be no doubt at all that, having regard to what the Seconder said in the last sentence of his speech, that those who are subject to public assistance are in no sense responsible for their lot, it really is a national problem. It can only be solved nationally, and I submit that this House should have no hesitation in saying to-day that this problem must be solved nationally, out of national funds.
Both the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment congratulated the Government on the effects of the last revision of the block grant, and they seemed to imagine that that revision really helped to solve the problem. They quoted some figures, and I also have some figures to give to the House. There is a distressed area known as Blackpool, and under the last revision Blackpool actually gained to the extent of a 3d. rate. Bournemouth, another distressed area, whose present total rate is 7s. 10d. in the pound, gained 1.3d.; Brighton, another one, gained 1.1d.; Croydon and Eastbourne gained, Southend-on-Sea gained 4.3d., and Southport gained 2.4d. If that is the effect of the revision of the block grant, I do not think even the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment can justify it and suggest that that is a contribution towards the solution of the problem. On the other hand, you get areas which, though they do not rank as Special Areas, are areas where there is a very large amount of distress and unemployment, such as Burton-on-Trent, which has actually lost a rate equivalent to 5.8d. as a result of the last revision, Halifax, which has lost 4.9d., and West Ham, which has lost 3.3d.
It, therefore, appears that the revision of the block grant is really no solution of the problem. Indeed, it creates more anomalies than it cures, and though it may have helped the plight of some authorities which are in the distressed areas, it has actually worsened others and benefited a large number of authorities which needed no benefit at all, but were in a very happy position. The Mover


of the Amendment seemed to suggest that poverty in a particular area is the fault of the local authority, that because a local authority has a high charge in respect of public assistance, it is due to mismanagement. Is it due to mismanagement that, for instance, Merthyr has a large number of people on public assistance who have to be helped out of the rates and that Bournemouth has a large number of people on public assistance who are helped out of the taxes? It is not a matter of maladministration or otherwise. Bournemouth happens to be a very desirable place, and naturally people who are in a position to do so flock to it, and that tends to increase the rateable value. A penny rate in a place like Bournemouth is a very different thing from a penny rate in a place like Merthyr. In London, a penny rate levied in Westminster produces £33,000; the same penny rate levied in Poplar produces about £2,000. Would the hon. Gentleman say that that is because Poplar is badly administered and Westminster well administered? Even the hon. Members for Westminster would not claim that.

Mr. Wise: I am not so sure.

Mr. Silkin: They certainly would not claim that it is badly administered in the proportion of 16 to 1. No, Sir, maladministration does not explain these anomalies. The fact is that the burden upon the poorer districts is becoming intolerable, and I submit that it is no solution of the problem merely to put forward an Amendment which welcomes the revision of the block grant. I can understand the hon. Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) welcoming the revision of the block grant, because his own county has done very well out of it. I understand that his own county has gained to the extent of an equivalent of a rate of 2.6d. in the £.

Sir G. Fox: I think the hon. Member has quoted the City of Oxford, not the county.

Mr. Silkin: The figure for the county is 2.6d. gain, and so it is clear that the revision of the block grant, to which the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment pinned so much faith, is really no solution of the problem and that some other solution must be found. I submit that

the only real solution is that the charge for the welfare of the poor should be a national charge. Hon. Members opposite seem to be afraid of it, as if it were an innovation, but I submit that it is no innovation at all. Already the State is responsible for the care of the able-bodied unemployed, and the present Government undertook that responsibility. Therefore, there is no new principle involved, and indeed it is merely an extension of the existing principle to undertake the care of those who are past employment and who have to get public assistance. I submit that sooner or later this House will have to come to a solution of that sort, because it is unthinkable that any local authority should be able to bear for long a rate of something like 27s. in the £. Even in London we have our distressed areas, and the effect of the revision of the block grant in London has been most inequitable. Take some of our poorest boroughs in London. In Bermondsey the revision of the block grant has resulted in a loss of £26,000 a year, Poplar has actually lost £14,000 a year, Finsbury and Deptford have lost, Shoreditch has lost £13,500 a year, and Stepney £18,000. It is inconceivable that hon. Members opposite should have put forward the revision of the block grant as in any way affording a solution of the problem.
I want to say one word about the position of London. I do not believe for a moment that the solution of the problem lies in the direction of a mere redistribution of the existing rate levied for public assistance. I believe that in that way you will merely create a new set of anomalies, and I feel that the only solution of the problem is that which was put forward by the hon. Member who moved the Motion, namely, that the whole burden of dealing with the poor should be placed upon the Exchequer. I am not in the least afraid that this would involve in any way extravagance on the part of particular authorities. The Exchequer knows quite well how to impose necessary control upon local authorities. It does so most effectively in the case of education. Education authorities can hardly spend 6d. without the iron hand of the Board of Education upon them, and in every other service where the Exchequer is in any way a partner the machinery of control is so rigid that it effectively prevents extravagance on the part of the local authorities.
I submit that even if you had assistance by which the State paid the cost of providing for the poor and the local authority administered the service, the control which the State could exercise would be adequate to ensure that no extravagance should take place. But if the State were afraid to entrust this service to the local authorities, then I see no reason why they should not deal with the necessitous poor on the same lines as those on which they are already dealing with the able-bodied unemployed. Indeed, the matter could be dealt with by an extension of the existing principle. I submit to the House that no case has been made out by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment against the Motion, that they have not put forward a single constructive proposal to meet the admitted difficulties and hardships with which many of the local authorities throughout the country are faced, and that the House would be well advised to vote for the Motion.

5 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: We must look at this matter from the point of view of principle. Local government has for many years been an integral part of the democratic governmental system of the country, and this system has been rightly closely guarded as one of the great privileges of democracy. Although I appreciate the motives which led the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies) to raise this matter, I feel that if the Motion is passed and put into effect it will create a dangerous precedent and will in no small measure affect the principles of local administration. Local government, in order to meet the expenses incurred by local communities, is empowered to levy rates on those communities, and it is clear that if a scheme such as has been suggested by the hon. Member comes into being, the financial administration in local government would be revolutionised, because national control would take the place of decentralisation. That appears to be largely the policy of the party opposite. All the time they want centralisation. I believe, however, that the efficiency of government, as of anything else, is in decentralisation as far as possible.
Let us take the case of the spendthrift local authority. There is no doubt that there are local authorities which are ex-

travagant and very ready to hand out other people's money if they can do so with impunity. Is it proposed that this national pool should contribute towards this extravagance, and who, under such a system, is to determine what local requirements are?

Mr. Quibell: Will the hon. Gentleman give an instance of this extravagance?

Mr. Taylor: I am coming to that. My hon. Friend who opposed the Motion mentioned the cases of extravagance a few years ago when local authorities were entrusted with making transitional payments to men who had ceased to be entitled to insurance benefit. The funds for these payments were found by the Exchequer, and the local authorities paid them on behalf of the Government. There is no doubt that there was gross extravagance in some cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I am not going to mention names, but there was gross extravagance in some cases, although in the main local authorities did their job with fairness both to the Government whose money they were distributing and to the people to whom the payments were made.
I am one of those who believe that every penny of local expenditure must be scrutinised very closely by the local authorities who are responsible. Local authorities will only do this if they are administering their own ratepayers' money, and if they are responsible to them. Under the scheme suggested in this Motion many local authorities will no longer have the same direct responsibility to their own ratepayers. I am certain that under such a pooling scheme every reason in the world would be put forward to show that existing payments were inadequate, and we may be certain that a much greater sum would be spent on public assistance than at present and thaw could be justified. I cannot believe that such a scheme would be acceptable generally to local governments. What is more important, I cannot conceive that it would be acceptable to the communities which those local governments a present. Every community, whether it be a county or a county borough, should, as far as possible, make its own provision for the payment of public assistance. I know that in some cases there is an excessive burden, and I will say a few words about them in a moment. Local authorities are elected by the ratepayers, and under


our democratic system the ratepayers can exercise the strictest control over the administration in their districts. If the ratepayers' money is used in an extravagant manner for whatever reason, the ratepayers are entitled to make representations or complaints, or to take action during the local elections. In this way they exercise a certain control. I see no control under the suggestion of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil.

Mr. S. O. Davies: The Poor Law administration is controlled to-day. I hold in my hand the maximum scales of payment of the Merthyr Tydfil public assistance committee. Every figure and every condition regulating the payment of Poor Law relief has been scrutinised and approved by the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Taylor: I still think that decentralisation is much preferable. Under it there is a much stricter control by the people on the spot. My hon. Friend who opposed the Motion mentioned the formula for distributing the Exchequer contributions among the counties and county boroughs. When the formula was revised in 1937 it was revised after full consultation with the associations of local authorities, and the changes were made with the agreement of all sides—

Mr. Ede: No.

Mr. Taylor: The associations of local authorities and everybody agreed to the changes in the formula.

Mr. Ede: I am a member of the executive council of the County Councils Association, and we never agreed.

Mr. Taylor: I am assured that the information I have is correct. One of the points borne in mind, I understand, was the desirability of increased assistance to poor areas so that it should bear a greater percentage to the amount of unemployment. Mention has been made of the benefit which is received by such places as Blackpool, Bournemouth, Eastbourne, and Brighton. If those places have benefited the poorer areas have benefited even more. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) mentioned areas which had lost, but he did not mention the places which had received vast benefits under the Government's scheme. I do not think a case that we can support has been made out, and I hope that the House will agree that the Government are doing all they

can to alleviate the distress in these unfortunate districts.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Pearson: I would like to offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies) on choosing this subject for discussion, and for drawing our attention to a grievance which is deeply felt in many parts of the country. The responsibilities of the local authorities are of a wide and varied character, and in the weave of the Governmental machine they are successfully functioning. There is a tendency to assume that the improvement of much of our national life in regard to health and the reduction of infantile mortality is due to Acts of Parliament and the expenditure of public money. Such things give the power and the means which have been invaluable, but the present result could not have been achieved without the awakening of public concern. This Motion brings the question of the excessive burden of public assistance to the forefront. It would be a bad day for the country if we allowed the essential local government services to be lowered in standard because of the burdensome high rates due to the heavy public assistance charge. This presses most heavily, of course, on the Special Areas, on those places where the inhabitants are least able to bear the cost.
Owing to the system of rating now in existence, the poorest of our countrymen have to pay some proportion of the public assistance charge. It is not a question of the ability to pay. The rating system imposes a burden on the poorest who have to pay their proportion, although they may be unemployed and, indeed, receiving public assistance. I think hon. Members will find that oftentimes the public assistance rate upon an ordinary workman's cottage in the distressed areas works out at from 2½d. to 3d. per week, which has to be paid out of an allowance which is admittedly not sufficient to keep the families properly.
The Motion asks that some means should be devised to equalise the burdens of the public assistance rates, and we want to secure this reform without introducing greater evils. Surely it is possible for the wit of man to discover some effective means of making this charge more just than it is at present. Reference has been made to the report of Sir Malcolm Stewart,


the late Commissioner for the Special Areas. He recommended that the excessive burden of public assistance upon local authorities in the Special Areas should be reduced by some such means as the equalising of the public assistance rate throughout the country, and he added:
This should be done by some immediate emergency measure.
Surely Sir Malcolm Stewart's report and recommendation can be regarded as being apart from the differences of party politics. It was the report of a man who had made a close investigation into the problem of the Special Areas, and it brought out in a most marked manner the excessive burden of public assistance.
The Government have accepted the principle that Government aid should be scaled up or down according to the relative needs of areas as measured by the formula, which is weighted in regard to population, unemployment, children below the age of five years and density of population. There is a scaling up or down under the Midwives Act, some of the Special Areas getting 75 per cent. under that legislation. Cannot this principle of relating Government grants to needs be extended, say, to the education and the police services, which would make some contribution towards easing the tremendous burden of public assistance? Hon. Members opposite said that the block grant has made a big contribution towards lightening the burden of the Special Areas. I am not going to deny that some contribution has been made by that formula—it is a particularly complicated formula, which few people rarely understand—but what we say is that it does not do enough. Cannot we see that it is not enough when Merthyr Tylfil, for example, which has benefited so greatly under it, yet have a public assistance rate as high as 15s. 9½d. in the £, in contrast with other areas where the rate is below 2s. in the £?
That is the gravamen of our complaint in regard to this whole matter—that the system is not based upon a solid foundation of justice. There are areas such as Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Middlesex and Surrey with public assistance rates under 2s. in the £. There are boroughs such as Bath, Blackpool, Bournemouth,

Brighton, Chester, Coventry and Eastbourne where, similarly, the rate is below 2s. They are in contrast with Glamorgan, Monmouth and Durham, counties with a public assistance rate of more than 8s. in the £, and with county boroughs such as Merthyr Tydfil, West Ham and Hartlepool, where the public assistance rate is also above 8s. in the £. I believe that there are ways, apart from the one that has been suggested of making the public assistance charge a national one, although a very strong case has, I think, been made out for that method.
Why not relieve the burden of the Special Areas by giving more adequate old age pensions? That would take a tremendous burden off the public assistance authorities. In the county of Glamorgan we are now giving aid to the extent of £200,000 a year to old age pensioners who have to seek public assistance. We have been told in answer to a question that there are 300,000 old age pensioners throughout the country who have to seek public assistance, and I believe it will be found that the greater number of them are in the distressed areas. Certainly we can say that the proportion of old age pensioners to the younger members of the population is much greater in the distressed areas than elsewhere. As I have already suggested, I think that in the case of such services as education and police, which now get a definite grant regardless of the conditions in the particular areas, the grants should be scaled up or down according to the needs of the areas. More should be done to prevent the necessity for the migration of youths from the distressed areas, because the numbers of the aged in those areas are getting out of all proportion to the numbers of the younger generation.
Much has been said about the last reallocation of the block grant. Some of the areas did benefit by that action. Glamorgan, I admit, benefited by no less than 2s. in the £. But prior to that a special grant of £66,000 per annum was being made and that was wiped out entirely under the re-allocation, so that really, on the basis of what a penny rate brings in, the benefit in Glamorgan was really less than 1s. 6d. in the £ and not 2s. I am afraid that in some of the Special Areas we shall be faced with the problem of how to maintain the essential services. For example, we have been forced to pare


down the amount of money which is being spent upon the roads because we have desired to get all the money we can to relieve the poor. The local surveyors are questioning the wisdom of that economy, and I am afraid that presently the Ministry of Transport will be calling attention to the state of the roads. In Glamorgan no one can have relief if there is more than 10s. per head going into a household. Surely hon. Members will not say that that is extravagance, that that is "squandermania." It has been found in practice that the amount spent upon food out of unemployment allowances or public assistance has been no more than 2s. 9½d. per person per week, including children. Surely that is a totally inadequate sum on which to exist, and our people have been gnawed by the shame of being unable to win a livelihood for their stunted and ill-clad families. Yet they are the people who have to bear a share of the excessive public assistance burden. The Motion asks for an element of justice in asking that the burden shall be taken off people who cannot afford to hear it, and I hope that the House, in its wisdom, will support the Motion, which was so ably proposed and seconded.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Wise: We have strayed some distance in the course of our discussion today, and necessarily so, I think, upon a Motion of this kind. I do not think anybody could quarrel with the wide range taken by, let us say, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson), although I read into his speech a greater approval of the Amendment than of the Motion, because he admitted that already the re-allocation under the block grant system had done some good, and rightly so, because, of course, there is no question that it has. The bulk of his speech was really more in the nature of a plea for the extension of that system than for a re-allocation of the rating burden over the whole country, and I think he will find a good deal of support for it on all sides of the House. Probably he has hit upon the best solution for this admittedly very difficult problem because although we have to realise that the Special Areas are peculiarly hit at the moment, and in some cases have almost overwhelming burdens of Poor Law relief to bear, it is our hope that they will not permanently be Special Areas. We trust that the real solution of the problem will not be found

in the re-allocation of rates but in the encouragement of industry to return to areas which it has left. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies) pointed out in, if I may be allowed to say so, his extremely adequate speech, the loss of wealth to these areas has been largely due to the exportation of their personnel, and for the moment they have a grievance or, let us say, a debit against the rest of the country, but until quite recently the position was the other way round.
The reason these areas are distressed is that in the last century the flow of industry was so great the other way and their populations were so vastly increased that the burden of expenditure came upon them with a tremendous rush. When the industries which attracted that flow of population suddenly collapsed, when the export market of coal went, and when the trend of industry changed to the manufacture of products which were not readily produced in those areas, those places were left with far larger populations than they could support, in exactly the same way as other areas were previously left, when the drift of population was going in the other direction.

Mr. S. O. Davies: It took from three to seven generations before the so-called surplus population became a burden on Merthyr Tydfil. I do not want the country to forget what happened meanwhile.

Mr. Wise: I do not want for the moment to go into the merits of the particular case, but I would point out that Merthyr Tydfil is, as the hon. Member well knows, an entirely special problem, and it has always been regarded as such. It is one of the very few boroughs against which there is no shadow of complaint in regard to their previous local expenditure. The case of Merthyr Tydfil is hard, but I still believe that the remedy, even there, is greater assistance from outside. Of course, the real remedy is more factories in Merthyr Tydfil. I am glad to see some sign of that coming about, and I hope that it will not be long before the hon. Member's constituency will be one of the prosperous boroughs, and he will be vigorously resisting the suggestion of its rates going to somewhere else.
As I read the Motion, the main proposition is the levelling of rates throughout the country. The hon.


Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) took the discussion rather far away and on to the subject of the assumption by the State of the whole of Poor Law assistance instead of its administration by local authorities. I will come to that aspect of the matter in a moment. The first proposal relates to the levelling of rates over the whole country, and I submit that that is not a practical proposition. There is, first, the argument that it is unwise to entrust expenditure of money to people who are not responsible for raising it. Although that is not an infallible argument, it has some merit. There is a sufficiency of truth in it to make it a serious proposition. The collection of a general Poor Law rate all over the country would lead, I believe, to curious anomalies in the amounts of money levied. Although it is presumed that assessments all over the country would be uniform, they would not be so. It is almost impossible to reach uniformity of assessment, and if the general rate were to be levied simply on a poundage basis the result which hon. Members opposite want would not, I believe, be attained.
I do not think it is entirely fair that a very prosperous borough should have to contribute to a problem which is not of its creation, and is not concerned with its sphere of administration. I am prepared to admit that it is possibly unfair also that the hard-hit borough should have to meet a problem which is also not of its creation. For that reason I believe that block grant readjustment is the proper solution to the problem. The hon. Member for Pontypridd suggested that some authorities had spent the whole of their block grant increase and were worse off, being left without any resources until the next valuation, four years hence. I do not believe that that is at all a general case. We have in the last month had a recession of a major kind in trade and it may have produced that position in certain areas, but I do not believe that it is general. I do not believe that the quinquennial valuation is basically a bad system for the administration of the grant.
We come now to the question of the State assuming the whole responsibility for Poor Law relief, and we reach a much wider and more philosophical argument. I do not see any spiritual reason why the State should not assume the

whole burden of Poor Law relief. So far as I see it, it is a matter of practical efficiency and of whether or not it would benefit either the poor or those who had to find the money if the action were taken. I do not attach an enormous amount of weight to the argument that if you removed local administration of these funds you would necessarily impair vastly the position of the recipients. I do not see any reason why the officials of a central body should not administer money as humanely as local officials responsible to a local body. Presumably they would be the same people, merely having different masters. I can see a number of arguments for removing the administration of Poor Law relief entirely from the turmoil of local elections. I think that there is a good deal to be said for that point of view, but I would not for a moment dogmatise about the possibility of extending the system, on which we have already started, and of taking the whole charge of the poor into the hands of the Exchequer and of not leaving it in the hands of local authorities, but I do not believe it is necessary to do that yet.
We have moved step by step. Not so very long ago, certainly not a century, the care of all the poor, able-bodied or otherwise, was in the hands of the local authorities. By progressive stages we have removed, first, the insured population and then the able-bodied unemployed who had fallen out of insurance. It is possible that within a few years we may extend that even more widely. I do not think that hon. Members opposite will find any violently doctrinaire resistance from this side of the House against such a step, but I still do not believe that this is the time to do it. We need, first of all, to readjust the industrial map of this country. Until we have done that it is possible to proceed only by means of ad hoc relief to these areas. We must find out whether our basic distress is to be concentrated in areas, or whether we are to be able to remove the basic distress altogether. The present flow of industry is really back to the areas from which come the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and those who support him to-day, and they are going to find their burden of Poor Law relief very greatly relieved. The earners of rates, whose absence at the moment has put those areas into certain difficulties, will come back, and it will then be found that the burdens of


education, police services and all the other matters to which hon. Members have referred, will be more adequately met. When that is done, the burden of Poor Law relief will automatically be lightened and will not be the serious matter which it now is.
While we are on the question of the block grant let me say that it seems a little ungracious to complain of its inadequacy. I am prepared to believe that there is room for increase, but to quote a series of figures as did the hon. Member for Peckham to show that the relief was being given entirely to the unworthy, is to make the worst of what might have been a good case. It is true that Bournemouth, I think he said, received an additional grant of 1½d. in the £, but the distressed areas have received a great deal more. The relief to Merthyr Tydfil is actually somewhere in the nature of 5s. 3d. in the £, I am informed. I am quoting the same figures as was the hon. Member for Peckham. To complain that areas like West Ham and Bermondsey are actually losing on the block grant is an unfair representation of the formula. It is well to remind the House that those areas are losing population extremely quickly, and that the care of a great number of their needy is being placed upon other areas in which the population is being rehoused.
To take one simple example, I will cite the new area of Hendon, which has 210,000 people. Incidentally, it returns one Member, while five East End constituencies to which the hon. Member referred return five Members for a smaller population. That is the real reason for the fall in the block grant. I do not yet see, nor have I been convinced by argument from hon. Members opposite, why the operation of the block grant system is unfair to any particular area. I am certain that my hon. Friend at the Ministry will view with the greatest sympathy any suggestion for an acceleration, or possibly an adjustment of the formula of the block grant system. I suggest that it is not an unreasonable system, and that hon. Members opposite might very well agree with a great deal of what the Amendment says. If it were possible to reach unanimity upon the Amendment I would rather have it than a Division upon the Motion. I commend that possibility to the hon. Member who moved the Motion.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Batey: In answer to the last point of the hon. Member who has just spoken I suggest that it depends upon the area from which hon. Members come. If an hon. Member comes from a distressed area he speaks in favour of the Motion, and if from a wealthy area he speaks in favour of the Amendment.

Mr. Wise: Does the hon. Member call Smethwick a wealthy area?

Mr. Batey: Well, it is not Durham. We have to remember the large expenditure upon public assistance in the distressed areas, and it is because of the situation which has arisen that we are asking the Government to do something. Members on the other side point to the block grant, but, while we admit that the block grant has been revised, it still leaves us in the position in which we are to-day. The distressed areas are in a deplorable condition, and we are bound to ask the Government what they are going to do. This trouble has not sprung up in a day or two; it is a very old trouble; but, in spite of the length of time it has been in existence, the Government have failed to remedy it. The revision of the block grant is clearly not sufficient to meet the situation. I remember that years ago there was an impression in this House that what the distressed areas needed was some relief in regard to rates, and I believe that that led to the appointment of the Commissioner for the Special Areas, in order that something might be done to relieve rates in the distressed areas. We have had Commissioners in the distressed areas for years, and we have had revisions of the block grant, but still we are in the position in which we are to-day.
Last week I went to the public assistance offices in Durham and got the report which has just been issued by the public assistance officer there, containing an estimate of the expenditure on public assistance for the year ending 31st March, 1940. That report shows that, of all the counties in this country outside London, Durham has more cases to relieve by public assistance than any other county in England or Wales. Durham has to relieve no fewer than 57,000 cases. I know that Liverpool, which is a borough, stands higher with 60,000 cases, and the position of places like Liverpool and Durham is simply deplorable owing to the large mass of poverty which they have to relieve.


In Durham County this year the public assistance rate is no less than 9s. 1d. in the £, and that falls principally on the householders and shopkeepers, because while the Government revised the block grant in 1928, in 1929 they derated productive industry, and thereby threw the burden upon the householder and the shopkeeper.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Does the hon. Member suggest that the grant made in lieu of derating did not more than cover the cost of derating?

Mr. Batey: Whether it did or did not, we need not stop to argue, but, even if it was sufficient then, is it sufficient to-day? The block grant given then was not sufficient, and it is immensely far from being sufficient to-day. The estimate to which I have referred shows an expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1940, in Durham County, of £1,500,000 for public assistance—no less than £50,000 more than the expenditure for the current year. Some of the big items of that expenditure are items which ought to have been shouldered by the Government. It would relieve the local authority if the Government did their duty and shouldered that expenditure. A large part of the expenditure was for payments to old age pensioners, widows, men receiving workmen's compensation, and unemployed men. If the Government would shoulder the responsibility for these payments, it would relieve the local authorities immensely. Whenever the question of increasing the old age pensions has been debated in this House, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has always said that to increase these pensions from 10s. to 15s. a week would cost something like £34,000,000 a year. But that money is being paid now, though it is not being paid by the Treasury, but by the local authorities. When Government speakers talk about the enormous increase of expenditure that would result from an increase of old age pensions, they forget how much it would relieve the local authorities, who are so much in need of such relief.
As I have said, this public assistance expenditure includes, not only payments to old age pensioners, widow pensioners and men receiving workmen's compensation—very small amounts—but also payments to able-bodied unemployed. The Mover of the Motion read a Resolution

which was carried by this House some years ago, when the House was led to believe that the Government would assume responsibility for all the unemployed. The Minister of Health, on 24th February, 1938, said, in answer to a question in this House, that in Durham County there were then receiving out-relief on account of unemployment no fewer than 595 persons. That is a burden that we expected the Government would take over. We believed that the Unemployment Assistance Board would take over all these unemployed people, but to-day this burden rests upon the local authorities because of a mere technicality in the Act which prevents these people from being taken over by the Unemployment Assistance Board, and they have to be relieved by the local authorities.
My hon. Friend argued that public assistance ought to be levelled out throughout the country, and so far I have heard no effective argument against that levelling out. I am not sure, but I have a suspicion, that some years ago public assistance expenditure was levelled out among the various boroughs in London, and, if that could be done on a small scale, it could be done over a wider field and on a bigger scale. If that principle was agreed upon then, I do not see why it could not be agreed upon now, and public assistance expenditure levelled out throughout the whole country. Then we should not merely have Members from distressed areas pleading in this House with the Government, but Members on the other side of the House would be pleading with them as well. The Government ought to face up to this question. Nothing that they have done so far fills the bill and really helps the distressed areas. If the Amendment is carried, as I expect it will be, are we to be asked to wait until there is another revision of the block grant? And even if we have to wait for another revision, what prospect is there that, when the block grant is revised, the distressed areas will be helped? The condition of the distressed areas to-day, and their huge expenditure on public assistance, calls for the taking of immediate steps by the Government to do something on this question. I ask them, not only to give attention to the revision of the block grant, but to give special attention to taking from the local authorities the burden of relieving old age pensioners, widow pensioners, men who


are drawing workmen's compensation, and the able-bodied unemployed. If the Government would take steps along those lines, immense benefit to the distressed areas would result.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Emery: While I cannot agree entirely with the hon. Member who moved the Motion, I am in agreement with him in his reference to the financial burden which local authorities have to bear in supporting those who are compelled to apply for public assistance, and I am also in agreement with him when he suggests the desirability of spreading the burden over the whole country. My hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment said that the Motion was quite a new suggestion, but I submit that this is no new question at all. It has been debated time after time, and efforts have been made to persuade the Government either to assume the burden through the national Exchequer or to equalise it among the local authorities. The latter method is the one which I particularly favour. I think it is the most fair and the most just if we agree that the problem of looking after the poor people is a national problem. But the case for it has always been largely wrecked on the contention by the Government that it would not be compatible with effective local interest in the work of administration. I do not regard that contention as so serious as to prevent such a necessary reform.
Since the earliest days of Poor Relief, when there were something like 14,000 separate parochial districts, each with its own relief administration, we have had continually amending legislation, which has eventually reduced the area of chargeability to something like 140 areas at the present time, and it cannot be said that as a result effective local interest in administration has suffered in the slightest. On the contrary, I think it could be argued that it has undoubtedly improved. In equalising the burden of public assistance over the whole country, I do not think it should be difficult to create a national administrative body, with regional councils including representatives from the local authorities. That would maintain effective local interest in administration, and at the same time would secure much greater uniformity of treatment than obtains to-day. As an example of the present lack of uniformity, I may mention that in Lancashire there

are 18 county boroughs, so that, with the county council and the Unemployment Assistance Board, there are 20 different standards of methods of assessing need for domiciliary maintenance in that one county. I agree that it is desirable that the administration should be in the hands of officials rather than in the hands of local councils, a system which, in my opinion, is becoming more open to serious criticism.
Failing some means of equalisation, there will always be, and there is bound to be, a wide margin between the rates of industrial and residential areas. Public assistance expenditure is bound to be heavy in the industrial areas. The lower-paid section of the community, who mainly give rise to this expenditure, must live near their work, and they usually live in houses of low rateable value. In Salford alone, 44 per cent. of the total assessments of the city is on houses of the low rateable value of up to £10, and 58 per cent. on houses assessed up to £15. Another alarming feature is the steady growth each year of expenditure on relief to the aged and infirm in the industrial districts. This increase has continued during a period which industrially has been relatively prosperous, and it is to a large extent, if not completely, neutralising the benefits conferred by the Unemployment Act, 1934. Expenditure on outdoor relief in any city for 1937–38 exceeded the expenditure for 1933–34, although the Unemployment Act operated from March, 1935. In the case of old people, where their pensions are insufficient to maintain them and resort has to be made to the local authority to supplement the pension, it is costing Salford alone £30,000 per annum, which is the equivalent of a 6½d. rate. Further, there is great dissatisfaction among all industrial local authorities over the manner of dealing with the so-called able-bodied unemployed. There are so many who do not come within the scope of the 1934 Act, and there are others who when temporarily sick must go to the public assistance committee for maintenance. These alone in Salford account for 45 per cent. of the amount of the total relief paid out this year.
So it is not correct, in its full sense, to say that the Government accept responsibility for the able-bodied unemployed. I do not think the case for equalising this burden can be denied. I know it is our


view that the national Exchequer, through the block grant, is materially contributing to meeting the burdens of local authorities, and that the figure of £4,000,000 for England and Wales alone is mentioned as the amount of this relief. But the real point at issue is not the amount of relief that the local authorities are receiving through the block grant, but the extent of the burden that they are still left to bear. When one examines the whole position and sees the enormous growth of this particular expenditure, one feels—and I think most hon. Members will agree—that some reform is essential so far as our industrial areas are concerned. I do not agree that the Exchequer should bear some additional expenditure through the block grant, as suggested in the Amendment. I cannot understand why the block grant is being so much stressed to-day. I suggest that the ratepayers throughout the country should bear the same proportion of the cost, and that all areas should have protection by representation on the national administrative body. We have been told that the better-off areas would object to bearing part of this burden in the industrial areas. I do not believe that if the case for equalisation were fully set out, as it can be, any section of the public of this country would resent the suggestion that they should bear their fair share.
I know the House does not like sentimentality, and I have no intention of using any, but, if I may, I would refer in conclusion to this aspect of the matter. One of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all our achievements during the past 25 years has been the humanising of relations between all sections and classes in this country. Time and again it has been demonstrated, by the highest in the land and the lowest, that there is no greater ideal in life than that the same principle of common citizenship should animate us all. That is the cause of the growth of the beneficent influences which mark the last quarter of a century to a greater degree than any preceding period. The administration of public assistance has played no mean part in that achievement. An analysis of that achievement proves that it has brought also a bigger and wider demand upon the resources of the people. That part of the demand

which has had to be met from the national Exchequer has been readily and willingly met by the people, because of the knowledge that money which is raised through our national Exchequer rests upon the two pillars of taxation wisdom—ability to pay and equality of sacrifice. As long as those principles of citizenship remain, so long will the people of this country be ready to pay their fair share. But the other part of the burden which has to be met through rating has not been willingly met. The rating system has been for a long time, and still is, regarded as unsound in principle and totally wrong in practice. That is why I lend my voice to the appeal which is being made to the Government to do something to recognise the principle of equalising this burden and to remedy something which is, obviously, a very great wrong.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Collindridge: I feel that my colleagues on these benches will echo my opinion when I congratulate the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Emery) on the speech he has just made. I wish that some older Parliamentarian had been expressing this view in perhaps a more able fashion than I can. There are some aspects of the hon. Member's speech with which we may not be in agreement, such as the suggestion he made for official administration of relief instead of its administration through the existing channels; but, on broad lines, he has supported very well the Motion put forward by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies). We hope that he will come into the Division Lobby with us in support of the Motion, and that many of his colleagues will do the same. I would say, in all sincerity and with great respect, that if he holds the views expressed in the latter part of his speech perhaps before long we shall find him sitting on these benches.
I come from a town that is sorely affected by the question dealt with in this Motion. Increasingly one hears speeches being made urging national unity. In times of crisis there is an ever-increasing tendency towards that idea. Nothing would tend more to create national unity than a movement in the direction indicated in this Motion. When the need for national unity in a time of crisis is mentioned it is not uncommon for people to point out many of the difficulties and em-


barrassments with which they are confronted. In the town from which I come the augmentation of old age pensions through the public assistance committee is responsible for a very large expenditure. Questions have been asked by various hon. Members in this House recently as to how many people receiving old age pensions in their constituencies were receiving relief from the public assistance committees in order to augment those pensions. Some time ago I submitted questions on those lines to the Minister of Health, and I followed up my questions by asking for a comparison between the two years 1936 and 1937. It was revealed in the Minister's answer that in one year alone the number of people who were receiving old age pensions and who had to seek public relief had gone up by 13 per cent. That shows the growing burden which is placed upon one municipal authority. It is distinctly unfair and it is the fault of this House for failing to deal with the matter of old age pensions.
There is another direction in which a heavy burden is thrown on public authorities because of the demand for public assistance. I refer to the inadequacy of the payments made to people who are injured in industry. My district is a purely mining one, and it has a heavy death and injury roll. Like the hon. Member for West Salford, I do not want to indulge in too much sentimentality, but I would point out that in our mining districts every man on average is injured once every five years or else if one misses someone is injured twice. The small payment of 30s. a week or less that now goes to the injured miner, with no regard to his family, compels him very often to seek the aid of public assistance. The position of the widow and dependants of a fatally injured miner is also very distressing. I assisted in my last job to carry out from a mine a man who had been seriously injured and who ultimately died. He was a very good workman, in a good job, and he was receiving about £4 a week. He had a wife and five children to maintain. The full amount of compensation that went to his widow was slightly less than £600. At the standard rate that he was giving to his family when alive, the lump sum was exhausted in a few years, and the widow and five children are now being maintained out

of the local rates by way of public assistance.
It may be said that that is a burden which the local authority concerned ought to bear. We contend that if the non-mining parts of this country need the fuel that the miners produce, and in view of the national need for this, surely, it is incumbent upon the whole community to help those who are injured and their dependants, and not place the burden upon one particular district alone. I ask hon. Members opposite to bear this in mind when the Division comes. I want to appeal on these lines. The continuation of the anomalous position that now exists in these districts makes the position less bright than it would be if we had not these heavy burdens to bear.
I finish my remarks by making this sincere appeal to hon. Members opposite. If this is to be a day of national unity, and if we cannot have equalisation of all our people at once, at least some of the things, which, I assure the House, are very definitely keeping us rather apart, should be afforded to us. We are endeavouring to do this by the Motion which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil has introduced to-day. It is a very humble and moderate Motion, but it will help, and we hope that we shall have the support not only of our own people on these benches, but of Members on the benches opposite as well.

6.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I intervene now for a few minutes and indicate the attitude of the Government to this Motion, and I would like to begin by congratulating the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) on the way he has used his luck in the ballot. I am sure that we all agree that he spoke with feeling and moderation and with knowledge upon the position of areas with which he is particularly familiar, and with which all Members of the House will sympathise. His Motion has given the House an opportunity of reviewing an important part of social legislation—the problem of how best to spread the burdens of relief. Successive Governments have approached this problem on the basis that the obligations are partly national and partly local. There are advantages and disadvantages


in both methods. It is, for instance, important to preserve as far as possible the principle of elasticity even in public assistance.
Some valuable social experiments have originated in local areas. I have a case in mind in my own constituency at Bristol. It is the case of the winter coal allowance. Bristol gave that allowance when it was not very common for local authorities to do so, and now it has been adopted by the Unemployment Assistance Board. Local authorities have been able to carry out pioneer work in Special Areas which would have been perhaps beyond the power of the central Government. At the same time, local authorities began to find that the burden of supporting the able-bodied unemployed was too great to be borne, and so the State stepped in, and, with the establishment of the Unemployment Assistance Board, removed from the local authorities a great part of their obligations. This provision applies to all the able-bodied unemployed who come within the scope of the Contributory Pensions Act, and I believe that on all sides of the House it will be agreed that that afforded a very substantial relief to the overburdened local authorities. In a word, the Government have tried to strike a balance between the obligations of the local authority and the central Government, and they have attempted to make the partnership as equitable as possible.
Of course we have not satisfied everybody, and it has been argued in this Motion that further steps should be taken to spread the burden more equitably. It could obviously be done in two ways, as the hon. Member for Merthyr suggested—either by the central Government making themselves responsible for public assistance, or by contributions to the rates of one authority from the rates of another. I would like briefly to examine where both these suggestions would lead us. As regards the assumption of further responsibility by the State for public assistance, I do not think that it could seriously be argued that the State could take over the costs of public assistance without also taking over the administration. No one, surely, could contemplate a partnership in which one partner provided the money without controlling the expenditure and the other partner spent the money without providing it.

Mr. MacLaren: What about agricultural subsidies?

Mr. S. O. Davies: The control of the expenditure is very largely in the hands of the Minister now as far as public assistance is concerned.

Mr. Bernays: That is not so.

Mr. Davies: I know it from experience.

Mr. Bernays: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me. I was interested in his interruption and so I refreshed my memory on this point. The public assistance authorities are under no obligation whatever to present their scales of relief to the Ministry of Health for approval, and in fact they do not do so. Moreover, my right hon. Friend is precluded under—I think it is Section (1)—the Poor Law Act from interfering with the scales.

Mr. Jenkins: Is there not an effective form of control by the Government system of auditors, where Government control is of such a character that, if there is any maladministration or malpractices at all, the people responsible can be surcharged? Is not that an effective form of control?

Mr. Bernays: I will deal with that point. In regard to the waste of money, certainly the auditor can step in, but the auditor has no power to review the scales as a whole. All that he has power to do is to look into and examine an individual case and see if there has been any extravagance.

Mr. Jenkins: Does not that alter the scales?

Mr. Bernays: It does not alter the scales.

Mr. Jenkins: Surely, if the scale is excessive it can be regarded by the auditor as being a misuse of public money?

Mr. Bernays: The hon. Gentleman will not challenge me in this, that the auditor has only the right to inquire into individual cases. I would also point out further that the auditor is not the servant of the Minister of Health. It is entirely true that the local authorities do not have to submit their scales to the Minister of Health. I suggest, therefore, that if there was a system of establishing control by the State, that, if the State took over the obligations of public assistance, it would


substantially diminish the powers of local authorities. I do not want to make too much of this point, but I believe that it cannot really be denied, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who, I understand, is to wind up for the Opposition, will not deny, that if the State pays the cost, the State must also take over the administration.

Mr. Leonard: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that Glasgow at the present time is subject to a 4d. rate because it must abide by the statutory restriction placed upon it in regard to insurance and other factors, and that not one penny piece is contributed to the local authority because of that statutory restriction.

Mr. Bernays: I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer for what happens in Glasgow; I can only speak for England and Wales. Another point I wish to make is this: Why confine the proposal of an additional State subsidy to Poor Law assistance? Why not apply the same principle to the upkeep of highways and the provision of transport, street lighting and all the other obligations of local government? If the burden of public assistance is too great for some authorities to shoulder, it might well be argued that it is true also of other local services. Such a line of argument in the end leads us to a position in which local government would virtually disappear if the State had to take over all the burdens of financial responsibility. That would undoubtedly be a major disaster because we all believe in local government and regard it as at any rate a second line in the defence of democracy.
I can think of no social service which is so essentially a local service as public assistance. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) asked, as the able-bodied unemployed are supported out of the State funds, why not the necessitous poor as well? I do not think that public assistance is the same as unemployment assistance. They are two separate problems. Unemployment assistance was established to deal with a new, urgent, nation-wide problem of unparalleled dimensions. It was a national need calling for a national service. It was designed to deal with the distress of whole classes and even when unemployment was not the problem that it is to-day there was still need to extend help to the aged, the desti-

tute and the sick under circumstances which might call for assistance varying in amount from week to week. The problem of public assistance seems to me to be the problem of "Who is my neighbour?"—the problem of neighbourliness. It cannot be doubted that the right people to assess the neighbour's needs are the neighbours themselves. They can take into account individual needs and special claims. Public assistance is surely then a question of dealing with the hard case: the hard case which so often comes before us on Adjournment Motions. From my limited experience of administration I have definitely formed the opinion that it is the hard case that is most difficult for a Government Department to deal with. It is the hard case that is particularly susceptible of relief on the spot.
The hon. Member for Merthyr suggested that even if the State did assume responsibility the public assistance committees would still retain control. I do not see how that would be possible. If the responsibility for finding the money is a State responsibility I do not see how it is possible for public assistance authorities to continue. My main objection to the case put forward from the Opposition benches is that they seem to think that further vast assistance can come from State funds and the local authorities can still remain in the same position of independence that they hold to-day. In taking that view I think they are living in an unreal world.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Is the hon. Member not aware that the Government in the block grant help the local authority in regard to education and a large number of other circumstances? Why cannot they meet a responsibility of this kind by amending the block grant formula?

Mr. Bernays: I am coming to the block grant later on. It is all a matter of degree and it becomes a very serious question. Already in some areas the rate income is less than the money received from the Government. I come now to the second means proposed for carrying out the proposal made in the Motion: what I would call the spread-over. Over what areas are the burdens to be spread? Something has already been done to enlarge the areas of public assistance administration under the Act of 1929. There were considerable extensions of the units of public assistance following on that Act. In


London, 25 unions were replaced by the London County Council. In Kent 26 were replaced by the Kent County Council and one county borough council. In Hampshire 26 were replaced by the County Council and three county borough councils. I suggest that by the continued process of bringing in other areas there has been an increase in the rateable value and, therefore, a more equable distribution of burdens. Something more may be done, it is suggested, by way of amalgamations on a large scale. The Tyneside report is a case in point. There are, however, substantial difficulties, and not the least is the opposition of the local authorities to further amalgamations.

Mr. Jenkins: The difference between 15s. 9d. as the public assistance in Merthyr Tydfil compared with the lowest liability in the country of 1s. 2d., is surely a great disparity. These are the greatest disparities which have ever existed in the Poor Law of this country.

Mr. Bernays: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to make my speech. I am coming to that point. I shall deal with the question of what has been achieved by the reallocation of the block grant. I was saying that in regard to these amalgamations not the least difficulty is the opposition of the local authorities. I would remind the House that that opposition does not by any means come from local authorities all of one political colour. The supporters of the Motion are suggesting something much more than regional amalgamation. What they have in mind is something in the nature of a pooling of the rates, in other words, that Bath should make a contribution to the public assistance expenses of a town like Birkenhead. That would create a most difficult situation for Birkenhead. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) used the familiar phrase about paying the piper and calling the tune. It is quite clear that if Bath, for instance, helps to pay the piper, Bath will demand a voice in calling the Birkenhead tune. Bath will demand a voice in the scales of public assistance in Birkenhead. That situation might not merely endanger the autonomy of local authorities but also their efficiency in relieving distress.
The main obstacles to the proposal are the problems that would arise in day-to-day administration. I admit that a high

relief scale may be compatible with sound administration. What is vital is that there should be in all cases a thorough investigation and a decision strictly on merit on each case submitted for relief. In cases where the greater part of the cost of relief would fall on another authority and not on the authority incurring the expenditure I suggest that the chief essential for prudent administration is removed. As a practical instance I would give the experience of administration of transitional benefit between 1931 and 1935. That experience shows the great difficulties which would arise where the authority administering the relief did not have to foot the bill I come to another point to which I am sure the House will attach importance.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Surely it is inadequate to make that statement and not to present the facts. Extended benefit never went beyond standard benefit at any time.

Mr. Bernays: In the case of County Durham and Rotherham the scales were so high and extravagant, if one may so call them, that Commissioners were placed in those areas.

Mr. Batey: They should never have been appointed.

Mr. Bernays: I was challenged that there was not extravagance, and I gave those two instances.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Does the Minister realise that extended benefit never exceeded standard benefit at any time?

Mr. Batey: Does the Minister realise that the cases he quotes had nothing to do with standard benefit?

Mr. Bernays: The fact remains that Commissioners had to be put in. I come now to another point to which I am sure the House will attach importance. It was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Cox). Such a change as that suggested in the Motion could not be made except with the approval and willing co-operation of the local authorities, and there is no evidence of any kind that such co-operation or support will be forthcoming from the local authorities. Where is the evidence that the local authorities desire this pooling of the rates? The local government associations, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils


Association and the London County Council have made no representations to my Department on this question. It is hardly to be supposed that the more prosperous local authorities would welcome levies upon their rates. When in 1933 a distressed areas grant was proposed and it was suggested that the richer areas should make a contribution of a halfpenny rate to be matched by an equal contribution from the Exchequer, the proposal was turned down. The hon. Member for Merthyr suggested that the more prosperous local authorities would he willing to contribute.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Mr. S. O. Davies indicated dissent.

Mr. Bernays: At any rate, the argument has been put forward that there would be no objection, but in the case I have mentioned when they were asked, they said very clearly: "Not a halfpenny." When the Associations were consulted before the redistribution of the block grant the Minister's proposals as embodied in the 1937 Act, were accepted. Here I should like to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). He said that the reallocation of the block grant was agreed upon by the local authorities, but that was strongly denied by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who said it was not true. I have furnished myself with the evidence, which bears out entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne said. The report of the investigations on Section 110 of the Local Government Act says:
The conclusions are stated to have been reached in a spirit of compromise and are in the opinion of the conference such as would produce a settlement of county and county borough apportionments which could reasonably be accepted. In this spirit the revised formula was accepted on behalf of the London County Council and the associations of local authorities, subject to reservations in the event of acceptance not being general.
Therefore the hon. Member for Eastbourne was right in every particular. Indirect aid to the poorer areas by the reallocation of the block grant is on a different footing from a direct levy on an authority's own rates, That the suggestion contained in the Motion is not practical politics is borne out by what Sir Malcolm Stewart, who has been quoted to-day, said in 1936, in Part 6 of his Third Report as Commissioner for the Special Areas:

It may be presumed that there is little or no possibility of the majority of local authorities agreeing voluntarily and rapidly to … an equalisation of the cost of public assistance through a common pool and a common standard of administration.

Mr. S. O. Davies: He said much more than that.

Mr. Bernays: Yes, and the Government have done much more since. I fully agree with the case that the burden in some areas is severe. The hon. Member for Merthyr quoted in support of his Motion the opinion of Sir Malcolm Stewart and the opinion of the right hon. and gallant Member the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The answer is that the report of my right hon. and gallant Friend was made in 1933 and the report of Sir Malcolm in 1936, and that the Government since then have carried out the recommendations, though in a different way to that in which they were put forward. My answer is that the Government understand fully and have gone far to meet the case in the recent alteration in the assessment of the block grant which was designed for the very purpose of bringing greater assistance to the hard pressed areas. The hon. Member for Peckham spoke scornfully about the reallocation of the block grant under the 1937 Act. If hon. Members opposite felt so strongly about that reallocation it is surprising that they never challenged a division upon it. As a matter of fact, it went through without a division. The House knows the method which was adopted—increased weight was given to the unemployment factor. It has been suggested that the block grant does not take into account the factor of public assistance, but I think it will be generally agreed that public assistance has a direct relation to unemployment.
Increased weight was given to the unemployment factor and this, together with the increased amount of the total block grant pool, resulted in a substantial increase in the amount apportioned to the more necessitous areas. Figures have been given by some hon. Members on this side of the House. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil talked about the liability of contribution from local authorities to the Unemployment Assistance Board. That no longer is the case now. As from the same date local authorities were relieved of the contribution payable to the Unemployment Assistance Board under Section 45 of the


Unemployment Act, 1934. It is also the case that the setting up of the Board itself relieved public assistance authorities from the responsibility of maintaining large numbers of able-bodied unemployed persons and their dependants. What does this amount to in hard cash? Local authorities received £2,250,000 in new money, and were relieved of the liability of contributions towards the cost of unemployment assistance amounting to another £2,000,00. Substantial assistance was given to the areas most in need. Let me give some instances. Durham received a total benefit equivalent to a rate of 22d. in the £; Cumberland of 23.8d., Gateshead of 30.8d., Glamorganshire of 36.1d., Monmouthshire of 45.4d., and Merthyr Tydfil received an increase of 63.9d.
The hon. Member for Merthyr spoke of the stagnation of the health services. I do not think that is borne out by the facts. I have looked into the expenditure on maternity services in South Wales. In Glamorganshire in 1930 it was £102,000 and in 1936 £164,000; in Rhondda in 1930 it was £14,000 and in 1936 £33,000; in Merthyr Tydfil it was £4,900 in 1930 and £7,400 in 1936. I think we can take some satisfaction from the fact that there is no evidence from the figures of even a partial stagnation of the health services. I must point out further that the Government have tried in recent legislation involving grants to local authorities for new services to make an apportionment of grant on the basis of need giving more to some authorities than to others. This was done under the Midwives Act and it is also proposed in the case of the Cancer Bill. If the House agrees to that Bill Monmouthshire will get 85 per cent. grant towards the new service while Bournemouth will receive 21 per cent. We claim that in actual practice in the payment of grants the principle that has been argued on the Motion this afternoon has been followed, of giving "to each according to his need." I admit that the hon. Member mentioned this in his speech and I was glad to hear that he was grateful for it, but at the same time the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) led his party into the Division Lobby against the Financial Resolution on the Cancer Bill.
I do not want to be provocative and I mention these facts only to show that

it is extremely difficult for any Government to devise the right apportionment of burden. If we help one local authority we may do it at the expense of another. What you may gain in amalgamation you may lose in independence and in flexibility of administration. It is a question of the balance of advantages and disadvantages; and all that the State can do is to work out the principle of apportionment, service by service, in the light of varying local needs. That, we contend, is the object of the block grant, which of course is subject to a quinquennial review. I suggest that the fact that the block grant when it came up for revision less than two years ago was not challenged in the Division Lobby is an indication that it is achieving the object for which it was designed; to bring the greatest assistance to those areas where the need was greatest. It goes far to meet the case which hon. Members have made, and it is, in fact, the answer to their Motion.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I put two alternatives before the House. The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with one. I also made the case for making public assistance a national charge and the Parliamentary Secretary has not touched upon that very important aspect.

Mr. Bernays: The hon. Member was not in the House when I began my speech but he will find that I have dealt fully with both points.

Mr. Davies: Then the Parliamentary Secretary must have done it in less than three minutes.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: To many of us the Debate has been extremely interesting and we need not feel ashamed of the arguments put forward. Indeed, we have had some support from hon. Members opposite. Even the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) more or less accepted the principles of our case but I doubt very much whether he will appear in the Division Lobby with us. In recent years there has been an increase in rates all over the country despite the block grant. For the last five years there has been an increasing rate burden. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary will deny it. In county boroughs from 1935–36 to 1938 the rate burden has gone from 12s. 11¼d. to 13s. 4⅛d., 13s. 5½d. and


13s. 11½d., and in the urban districts and county councils the upward march of the rates goes on. The block grant has not met this situation. We have had two essays this afternoon from the mover and seconder of the Amendment, very learned essays, to which I was very glad to listen, as to how the block grant is working. The block grant is regarded as being something which has given substantial assistance to local authorities.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that we did not oppose the last revision in the Division Lobby. I suppose that on the first block grant proposal I made more speeches than anybody against it, and when the revision came on in 1937 why should we oppose something which brought some crumbs of comfort to certain local authorities? When the last revision took place it is certainly true that some local authorities received an increased grant; that is undeniable. But what relief they got in the worst placed areas has already been swallowed up in increased Poor Law expenditure. The Parliamentary Secretary skated over that point. Although there are areas which profited, it is nevertheless true that there are local authorities which, owing to Poor Law expenditure, are worse off now than before this latest act of generosity by the National Government. In spite of all the services that local authorities have to carry on, the greater part of the expenditure in many areas is on public assistance. I could keep the House for 10 minutes quoting the rates in the £ of local authorities where the burden of the poor rate amounts to more than half the total rates raised.
Everybody must accept—because the facts are there and cannot be denied—this uneven incidence of the public assistance rate. In towns of comparable size, with a similar number of children, the expenditure on education could not differ widely. It would depend upon the character of the local authority: if it believed in education it might spend rather more than the local authority that did not believe in it. Similarly the expenditure on the health services—for street lighting, roads, sewers, drainage, and hospitals—would be roughly the same in towns of comparable size. I took the trouble to look up the figures only yesterday, and if hon. Members considered the expenditure on rates for those particular pur-

poses they would find that the variation between one local authority and another is not really substantial. But when you come to the rate for public assistance the difference between one town and another is not merely phenomenal, it is astronomical. There are some towns where the poor rate is negligible and others where it amounts to more than half the money raised by the town for all its other constructive services. In other words, there are towns in this country which on their ambulance service of maintaining the poor are spending more than on the big constructive services which it is the pride of every public spirited local authority to develop.
Why does this enormous disparity exist? It is because poverty is the result of economic causes which are not under the control of the local authority. Unfortunately, this burden of poverty falls on areas which are increasingly unable to bear it. I opposed both the block grant system and derating; I think both were injurious to our system of local government. But the real trouble with the local authorities in the depressed areas to-day is not either the block grant system or the system of derating; the trouble is that the whole of the burden of the poor rate rests upon local authorities without one penny of State aid. That is a situation which is not made by the local authority. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, the hon. Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox), who spoke about work being obtained and so on, but I fear he has not faced the realities of the situation. Henley happens to be prosperous. There are more rich people living there than poor people. Merthyr Tydfil and other places happen to be poverty stricken and have few wealthy people in their midst. In times past, for three or four generations, they helped to create the wealth of Britain and the power of Britain. Now, through causes entirely beyond their control, they are derelict. Therefore, this problem becomes a national problem, because the Special Areas, as the Government, in dispassionate language calls them, are inhabited by people who are poor through no fault of their own but through the movement of economic forces.
The National Government accepted the principle of the national maintenance of the unemployed. They said the un-


employed must become a national responsibility. They never lived up to their pledges, but at least they admitted the principle. And one of the difficulties which local authorities in areas which are not Special under the Act are having to face to-day is that they have to maintain out of the poor rate people who are unemployed. The elderly man or elderly woman who cannot find a job, the man who has to try to live on workmen's compensation for a time, the man who has been disabled in industry—those people are poor not because they are vicious, but because they are the victims of circumstances. One hundred years ago in this House it was the custom of Members to refer to people in indigent circumstances as the "vicious poor"—it being assumed that the poor were poor because they were vicious. The poor are poor because of economic circumstances over which they have no control. There may be some who are idle, there may be people without merit, but the vast majority of those who have to go on public assistance do so not because of their own personal defects, but because of lack of opportunity and because of the circumstances in which they are placed.
The Government, therefore, in professing to take up the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed have only dealt with part of the problem. The widows, the orphans, the aged and so on—the people who are on the industrial scrap-heap for one reason or another—are as much a national problem as the people who are actually unemployed. The responsibilities of local authorities are as heavy as they are to-day because the State, while admitting its responsibilities, has never properly fulfilled them. I remember when unemployment benefit was 7s. per week. I remember the big Act of 1920, though I was not in the House then. I have spoken on most Unemployment Insurance Bills which have been introduced since 1922. It has never been claimed by the Government, whatever Government was in power, that unemployment benefit was sufficient for human maintenance. The system was introduced to eke out for a short time the period of unemployment when it was assumed by the Government of that day—the time before the War—that there were savings on which the family could rely. Nobody ever supposed that the

original 5s. for old age pensions was sufficient for maintenance. When it was increased to 10s. nobody ever claimed that that was sufficient for maintenance. And although we have admitted a national responsibility for the aged and for the unemployed, although we have admitted responsibility for disabled ex-service men, the responsibility has not been honourably undertaken. The aged, the crippled, the invalided and the disabled ex-service men have to go for their maintenance to the local authorities. While these services, whether it be old age pensions or unemployment insurance, have been accepted by the State, the State has not met the needs of the people who receive the advantages of the scheme. Therefore, if these people have no other resources, they are driven inevitably to the Poor Law and the local authorities.
The local authorities are to-day carrying a burden which the State has admitted it ought to carry itself. Nor is that all. Year by year, the House puts on to the Statute Book one Measure after another increasing the responsiblities and duties of local authorities. I have no complaint to make against that, for I want to go on increasing the duties and responsibilities of local authorities; but with the very limited resources at the disposal of the local authorities, it is impossible to go on placing more and more burdens on them unless the State is prepared to recompense them for carrying out those responsibilities. Therefore, we have to face the question of State help.
The Parliamentary Secretary gave us what I regard as the usual case about Government grants and local administration. In the winter of 1930, I distributed, with the approval of the House, £500,000 to local authorities in the depressed areas in order to help them to promote, outside the unemployment grants, any schemes of work which, through their poverty, they could not finance. I think that I kept to the canons of good government when I administered that money. I had no difficulty with the local authorities. We worked as partners undertaking a common task. One of the last Acts placed on the Statute Book by the Labour Government was a Bill of mine for building additional cottages in rural areas. Through the generosity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I had at my disposal £2,000,000, and I was empowered by Parliament to give 100 per


cent. grants to local authorities which had not the necessary resources. It was not my fault that that Act was not implemented. Was there any trouble there? Would there have been local authorities dominating the Government, or would there have been a benevolent Ministry of Health—keeping a watchful eye for wastefulness, but benevolent—doing its best to co-operate with the local authorities?
I do not think there can be any case now against making the Poor Law a national responsibility. The Parliamentary Secretary used a most extraordinary phrase. The hon. Gentleman told the House that the Poor Law was the oldest service in this country, a statement about which I do not want to argue; but he argued in favour of the Poor Law system by saying, "Who is my neighbour?" Is the man who lives at Torquay or Eastbourne, having made his money out of South Wales mines, a friend and neighbour of Merthyr Tydvil and the other areas in South Wales? Are those ship-brokers and shipowners who live on the West Coast, at Southport and elsewhere, neighbours of Liverpool, which is now a depressed area? I ask the hon. Gentleman the question—who is my neighbour in this matter of national importance, created not merely by national, but by international circumstances?

Mr. H. G. Williams: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps).

Mr. Greenwood: The interruptions of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) are always irrelevant. I always feel, when the hon. Member interrupts me, that I must be getting under the skin of the Government, which pleases me more than anything else. I put this point to the House very seriously. We have now this growing burden of rates, with a limitation of the resources of the local authorities, and in some areas, with a growing burden of poverty in their midst. The State cannot now deny its responsibilities, and then, if there is a grave crisis, call upon these areas to fulfil the vast responsibilities expected of them in the event of war. When all is said and done, at a time of grave crisis every Government must repose on the bosom of the people, whether they be prosperous or whether they be poor. There can be

no distinction if it comes to service to the community, whether in peace or in war, between those who are prosperous and those who are in the depths of poverty. If citizenship means anything to-day, it is something which should be honoured, and in those areas which are particularly unfortunate, through no actions of their own, there is a special case for assistance from those who are their neighbours. I contend that their neighbours are all the citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This problem is one which ought not to be left to them to wrestle with alone, with resources utterly insufficient for dealing with their problems.
My last word is this. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke of what the Government have done for the distressed areas. If it had not been for this party, this Session, the Government would have dropped their powers under those Acts. We had to insist on the continuance of the legislation under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Yet the problem of the distressed areas is the major problem. I am not asking for charity for people who are down, nor am I asking primarily for public money for people who are down. Our case always has been that we would rather they were working than eating the bread of idleness. The Government have reluctantly carried on the powers which they have. During this Session, they have not lifted a finger to do anything to provide more employment for the people. I have been looking up the figures of the rates in the £ in certain towns, and in some of the places where the rates are highest, the only thing the Government are banking on is rearmament. Rearmament is going on at the greatest possible speed. I commend this Motion to the House. We shall, of course, support it in the Division Lobby. The Motion has been brought forward because we believe we have a neighbourly duty to our people who are more unfortunately placed than the people in most constituencies; but we are not unmindful of the need for a great constructive policy which would bring back into normal employment the people who to-day are victims of the economic system under which they live.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: In the three minutes that remain, I would like to make one or two comments. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield


(Mr. Greenwood) expressed great dissatisfaction that old age pensions, and so on, are not up to the level of maintenance. Before the 1929 General Election, the leaders of the Labour party promised the electors old age pensions of £1 a week at the age of 60. Within three weeks of the General Election, the party opposite introduced a Bill to amend the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act—the right hon. Gentleman was in charge of the Bill—and left the amount at 10s. It is as well that that should be put on record. I think those who are now asking for more assistance should take the trouble to consider the vast change that there has been during the last 15 years in the volume of national assistance going to the areas suffering from distress.

Mr. S. O. Davies: The hon. Member is not talking about Merthyr Tydvil, is he?

Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield was—it is not my fault.

Mr. Greenwood: I want to correct the hon. Member on one point. It was not in 1929, but after the 1935 General Election that we produced our detailed scheme

for pensions of £1 a week, which I am prepared to defend.

Mr. Williams: The late Mr. Arthur Henderson made the statement to which I have referred, and he was one of the leaders of the party. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) moved the Motion. If hon. Members will go into the Library and get the volume showing the cost of education per child in each local government area in the country, they will find that these poverty-stricken districts are very extravagant.

Mr. Cove: I challenge the hon. Member on that.

Mr. Williams: I think the local authorities in poverty-stricken districts should exercise care and caution. When we see things in a shop window, we do not buy them unless we can afford to do so, and I think it would be a very good thing if those who have protested to-day would take the trouble of managing their own local affairs more competently than they do.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 202.

Division No. 27.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Emery, J. F.
Leach, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lee, F.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Gallacher, W.
Leslie, J. R.


Adamson, W. M.
Gardner, B. W.
Lunn, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
McEntee, V. La T.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gibson R. (Greenock)
McGhee, H. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McGovern, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
MacLaren, A.


Barr, J.
Grenfell, D. R.
Maclean, N.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)


Batey, J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
MacNeill Weir, L.


Bellenger, F. J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Benson, G.
Groves, T. E.
Marshall, F.


Bevan, A.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Mathers, G.


Broad, F. A.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maxton, J.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Milner, Major J.


Buchanan, G.
Hardie, Agnes
Montague, F.


Burke, W. A.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)


Cape, T.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Charleton, H. C.
Hayday, A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Chater, D.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Muff, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Oliver, G. H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Owen, Major G.


Cocks, F. S.
Hicks, E. G.
Paling, W.


Collindridge, F.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Parker, J.


Cove, W. G.
Hopkin, D.
Parkinson, J. A.


Daggar, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pearson, A.


Dalton, H.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
John, W.
Poole, C. C.


Day, H.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Price, M. P.


Dobbie, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kirkwood, D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Eckersley, P. T.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Ritson, J.


Ede, J. C.
Lathan, G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lawson, J. J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)




Sanders, W. S.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
White, H. Graham


Seely, Sir H. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Sexton, T. M.
Thorne, W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Shinwell, E.
Thurtle, E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Silverman, S. S.
Tinker, J. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Simpson, F. B.
Tomlinson, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Viant, S. P.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Walkden, A. G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)



Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)
Watkins, F. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watson, W. McL.
Mr. S. O. Davies and Mr. Leonard.


Stephen, C.
Welsh, J. C.



Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Westwood, J.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Grimston, R. V.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Pilkington, R.


Apsley, Lord
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Hambro, A. V.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Hammersley, S. S.
Ramsbotham, H.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Harbord, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Harvey, Sir G.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Blair, Sir R.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bossom, A. C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hepburn. P. G. T. Buchan-
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hepworth, J.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Herbert. Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rowlands, G.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Higgs, W. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bull, B. B.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Burghley, Lord
Hopkinson, A.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cary, R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Scott, Lord William


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Huntoke, H. P.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Channon, H.
Hunter, T.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Christie, J. A.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Snadden, W. McN.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Somerset, T.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Colvilla, Rt. Hon. John
Keeling, E. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cooke J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Spens, W. P.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cross, R. H.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Stourton Major Hon. J. J.


Crossley, A. C.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lees-Jones, J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Tate, Mavis C.


De la Bère, R.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Levy, T.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Denville, Alfred
Lewis, O.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Dixon, capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Lindsay, K. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Donner, P. W.
Lloyd, G. W.
Turton, R. H.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Wakefield, W. W.


Drewe, C.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Evan


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Warrender, Sir V.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macmillan, H (Stockton-on-Tees)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Eastwood, J. F.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Ellis, Sir G.
Markham, S. F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Marsden, Commander A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Errington, E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Everard, Sir W. Lindsay
Medlicott, F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton. E.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fyle, D. P. M.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Glyn Major Sir R. G. C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Munro, P.



Granville, E. L.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Sir Gifford Fox and Mr. Trevor Cox.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."

Several Han. Members: Several Han. Members rose—

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

CONDITION OF AGRICULTURE.

7.41 p.m.

Sir Percy Hurd: I beg to move:
That this House recognises the helpfulness of Government policy as applied to some branches of agriculture and urges that, in the general national interest and as part of the national defence, there should be an extended use of the principle, where appropriate, of assuring such a level of remuneration to producers as will cover the costs of efficient production, including improved wages and conditions for agricultural workers, and also of the method of regulating imports as agreed upon by the Empire Producers' Conference at Sydney.
When I was fortunate enough to draw the place in the Ballot which has enabled me to bring forward this Motion to-night, I was greeted with the remark, "Now, you agricultural Members will be able to demand the head of your Minister on a charger." I never had any such intention or any such desire, nor, I believe, had any one of those Members who are usually associated with me in agricultural matters in this House. Our hope and our expressed desire was that the Minister of Agriculture of that day, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) should be given the opportunity to carry to full fruition the declared intentions of His Majesty's Ministers. But that is not to be. He has been called to a more urgent task—more urgent, because, without adequate defences, all our domestic services, including agriculture, would be at an end.
We appreciate warmly what my right hon. Friend has done and has tried to do. We know that he would have done more had it not been for the inordinate demands which were made upon the time of the House last Session by foreign affairs. But if my right hon. Friend had done no more—and he has done a great deal more—than initiate the land fertilisation scheme, his name would live in agricultural history. That scheme is a landmark in our agricultural progress and I am sure that as agriculture regains its position the value and importance of that policy of fertilisation will be realised more and more. My right hon. Friend, I main-

tain, has paved the way for the new forward policy of seeing that agriculture is given its true and proper place in the national life, and seeing moreover that it takes its true place in our defence system. It is no small thing that he should now be in a Cabinet position which will enable him, in the pursuit of that defence policy, to take care that agriculture is truly regarded. So, we say "goodbye" to my right hon. Friend as Minister of Agriculture with regret. We thank him for what he has done and we wish him success in the new sphere that is open to him. I am certain that public life is enriched by men such as my right hon. Friend, with his ability and his gracious manner, and those of us who know him, whether we are friends or opponents, are certain that he still has a great place to fill in the public life of this country.
What about his successor? Our best wishes go out to him and, may I add, our sympathies. The task of a Minister of Agriculture in this country is always a most difficult one. He has, somehow or other, to fit agricultural policy into a framework of quite another character, a framework which is concerned with exports, and therefore with imports, with Empire development, with cheap food and with that internationalism which is the basis of our banking, finance and shipping interests. It has proved in the past to be a task beyond the powers of most Ministers of Agriculture, and it is rather a melancholy procession that we have in mind of Ministers of Agriculture who have come into office acclaimed loudly at the beginning of their task and then dropping away from public favour. All that we can say to the new Minister is that lie brings to his task exceptional experience and exceptional ability. He has had a contact with farming opinion and with farming practice that has been denied to most of his predecessors, and for my part, knowing something of it, I should say that any man who can drive that team at 45, Bedford Square, and can drive it so successfully that he is called to the Chair for a second year, is a man of mark.
My hon. and gallant Friend should know what can and what cannot be done in this highly industrialised country, and his experience in this House and in agriculture will help him to sound conclusions in the discussions in which he is now


about to engage with farmers, owners, and farmworkers. He has been called a poacher turned gamekeeper. Whether we think of manner or of method I do not know anyone less like a poacher than my hon. and gallant Friend. I am sure he will, in his new duties, take a broad national view. He will remember two big considerations. He will remember especially the workers on the land and their desire for the raising of their status and their wages. He has always shown a great sympathy in that direction. Furthermore, he will not forget the consumers, who must be a great factor in the development of agricultural policy. A policy that is not tolerable to the consumers is not worth having, because it cannot last. We wish him a prosperous journey, and we can assure him—those of us who are particularly concerned in agriculture—of our hearty support and, I may add, our prayers.
I maintain that the time is ripe for a decisive move forward in this matter of agricultural policy, and I am glad to think that my hon. and gallant Friend the new Minister has two advantages in the pursuit of that policy. He has, first of all, the co-operative sympathy of his colleagues in the Cabinet. That is a great thing. I am sure that the Prime Minister would not have appointed the hon. and gallant Gentleman to his post unless he was concerned for the position of agriculture to-day and determined that, in the broadest national interest, agriculture must be made prosperous and the countryside restored to a position of strength instead of weakness in this country. It has been said: you cannot plough the land by merely turning things over in your mind. Your thoughts and your wishes have to be translated into action, Cabinet action and legislative action, and I am sure that the Prime Minister, in choosing my hon. and gallant Friend, and the Cabinet in supporting that choice, are determined that the pledges of Ministers shall be fulfilled and that agriculture shall be given its essential place in our national economy. I am sure also that my hon. and gallant Friend would not have accepted the position unless he had had assurances of that kind. It is more than lip-service that is needed to be given to agriculture, and I am confident that my hon. and gallant Friend enters upon his post in that respect in a very favourable way.
There is another advantage that my hon. and gallant Friend has, and that is the compulsion of world events. We see aggressive militarism, especially in Europe and in the Far East. We see a new development of economic nationalism, and we know that these together must cut deep into our old and accustomed export markets. Part at least of our old export supremacy has gone, and we have to look elsewhere for its replacement. I believe that that replacement can best be found now in our own countryside. There are no tariffs in the way, no currency manipulations. There is the open door between the farmers and consumers. Furthermore, there is the possibility of a great expansion in the production from the land of those fresh foods which are especially essential if we really mean business in this National Fitness campaign. It is our own English land that can most potently help us in that respect.
There is another consideration, and, unless I am much mistaken, this has been very much in the mind of the Prime Minister in the choice that he has made, and that is the place of agriculture in National Defence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke the other day at Durham on the matter of financial strength as a weapon of defence, and he said:
When we assess the position of Britain in the world to-day, do not let us make the mistake of measuring everything by armed power alone, formidable as that is. Our financial strength has often been a decisive influence.
I suggest to the House that a prosperous British countryside may also be a decisive influence in the matter of defence. We ought never to forget that one of the influences that most certainly brought Germany to her knees in 1918 was the break-up of the German home front. We must remember that and see that our agriculture and our countryside play their true part in our national life. I am sure that these wider considerations have been in the minds of those who have chosen my hon. and gallant Friend, that is to say, the importance of a prosperous countryside and its place in National Defence. That is now generally accepted among all classes and all parties in this country. The old conflict between country and town has lost most of its sting, and Ministers, ex-Ministers, political


leaders, and industrial leaders have come to the conclusion that the time is ripe, and over-ripe, to put agriculture on a proper footing.
Recently the Federation of British Industries passed a resolution on this subject, supporting any reasonable method of safeguarding British agriculture. But there is something more remarkable than that, and that is the report, which I have by me, of a Committee set up by the Associated Chambers of Commerce of this country. They appointed a special body to consider this matter of the relation of industry to agriculture. The Chairman of that Committee was my hon. Friend the Senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson), the Vice-Chairman was one of the hon. Members for Oldham, and included on that Committee were representative industrialists from all parts of the country. It is a remarkable document that they have issued as their report, and perhaps the House will allow me to refer to it in short detail. They deplore, as we all do, the reduction in the area of arable land and cultivated grass by 2,000,000 acres and the lessened employment on the land by 500,000 men, and they point out that
Great Britain by her policy of opening up agricultural areas overseas and enabling her debtors to pay in goods and services, has helped herself to sell her manufactures abroad, her population to live better and more cheaply than ever before, but has for two generations exposed her farmers and agricultural landowners to fierce competition. This competition combined with the increase of population and spread of towns and the steady improvement in output by agricultural workers has
brought about the deplorable results that we see to-day. They go on:
Our population requires food at a low price and of best quality and in the large quantity which the low price enables us to consume. In particular, we might with advantage consume more fresh and home grown vegetables, fruit, milk, butter, eggs, and meat.
Furthermore, they point out how essential is the British countryside to manufacturing industry as an export market.
In the home market the farming population is itself one of the largest customers and sets in motion demands for many other customers. To maintain a healthy home market for British industry, it is important that British agriculture should be prosperous and progressive and that its wage earners should live on a good standard relative to their neighbours in towns.
Therefore, they call for national support for agriculture.
It becomes a question of the form that this national support should take. I speak for myself alone in this matter, but after 20 years' experience as a representative of agricultural constituencies, I would suggest that no new commission is needed. Heaven knows, we have had commissions enough. What we need is action, and I suggest to the House that action may best be taken by a persistence in and a development of what we have found to be practical and fruitful by our method of "trial and error." I know, as we all know, especially agricultural Members, that the formative time while these matters have been under trial and error has been very difficult for farmers. They have been confused by the various expedients that have been put forward. I see that my hon. Friends on the Liberal opposition benches have put on the Paper an Amendment of regret. Looking back over human affairs, there are always regrets. We wish that we had not done this and that we had done the other, but I would ask that it should be remembered that by these expedients agriculture has been saved from complete collapse. The position of agriculturists to-day would be one of despair if it had not been for these expedients.
Moreover, we know that by these methods we have maintained cheap food for the masses, and we have maintained higher wages—in my constituency pretty well double the wages as compared with what they used to be when I was a boy. These things are no small achievement. I know that it is said, "Well, after all, it is only a patchwork quilt, this policy of the Government." I dare say many hon. Members have, like myself, derived comfort from a patchwork quilt and have not worried very much about the different sizes and shapes of the pieces that made the quilt or about the colour of the pieces. We have asked ourselves, "What is the object of a quilt?" It is to cover the subject. If the policy of expedients has done that and kept us going so that we might conceive and develop a permanent policy for agriculture, we say, "God bless the patchwork quilt."
Now the time has come for expedients to give way to a national policy, and a national policy that has about it some stamp of continuity. I know that many of my farmer friends say to me, "Why don't you give us a thumping, all-round


tariff such as you have given to the steel men and the motor men? What is the matter with that?" I see that one of my hon. Friends has an Amendment on the Paper which points in that direction. I do not know what other hon. Members may think about it, but I am sure that if that attempt were made, it would result in a long series of dog fights, and I ask, "What would become of agriculture during those dog fights?" We do not need more dog fights, we need more unity in the way of direct action. Experience has shown that a high tariff policy for agriculture does not work. Foreign countries simply put on export bounties and undertake currency manipulation, so that the British farmer is almost as unprotected as he was before. There is no useful line of progress along that way.
Farmers were told to put their house in order and Parliament would see that they get fair-play. The farmer is a highly individualised person and it has been astonishing to me that he has conformed so readily and with such a large volume of unanimity to the policy of the reorganisation of his industry. There are the Milk Board and the other boards, and I do not know any bodies of the same character that are more efficient. Their efficiency is stamped on what they do. The Milk Board for instance, deals with a turnover of £50,000,000 a year and it does its work remarkably well. I beg hon. Members to remember that these boards are the farmer's own creation. They are evidence of his willingness to conform to the necessity of better organisation. Nor, I think, will anybody who knows agriculture belittle the craftsmanship of the agricultural worker. He is as skilled as any man in the town. I have no doubt that it is that idea which has led the New Zealand Government, in bringing in their price guarantee scheme, to link it up with wages. I can understand the attractiveness of that from some points of view, but I will ask hon. Members to consider whether, as a matter of fact, in view of the infinite variety of our agricultural production, our more flexible method is not yielding better results, not only for the industry, but especially for the farm worker. I know that is so in my own county, and I believe it is so generally in England. We have had some notable rises of wages and they will continue. If

we get a prosperous agriculture it will be reflected in the wage position of the worker.
It is by the united efforts of farmers and workers that agriculture in this country, in the quality of its production, has touched the top mark in the world. I am thinking, for instance, of our yield of wheat, of the character of our livestock, and generally of agricultural production. Where in the world will you equal English roast beef? Where in the world will you get the flavour of Cox's Orange Pippin?

Mr. Mathers: In Scotland.

Sir P. Hurd: I do not know whether Cox's Orange Pippins are grown in Scotland.

Mr. Mathers: I was referring to beef; surely Scotland is a beef country.

Sir P. Hurd: I am speaking of the United Kingdom generally.

Mr. Mathers: The hon. Member said "English."

Sir P. Hurd: I used the term in the way in which it is usually used, but I know how hotly many Scottish Members resent the inclusive term, and I withdraw it. The same applies to other classes of our agricultural production. There is, for instance, Wiltshire bacon. Its fame has gone all over the world and it has found imitations everywhere. The other day I was at a rural conference at Chester and the chairman spoke of the fitness of a gathering of that kind in a county like Cheshire which was world famous for its agriculture. I went away from the gathering feeling cheered, but then, passing along the main street, I saw the chief provision shop of Chester, and what was all over its window? "We guarantee that the bacon sold in this establishment is Danish only." Will the time come when that same shop will be labelled with a huge notice, "We guarantee that the only Cheshire cheese sold in this establishment is imported from abroad."
It is obvious that part of the remedy for our troubles is to be found not only in organisation, which we are getting, but also in publicity. I welcome the course which is being followed by the Milk Publicity Council. Its success is evident everywhere. I am delighted to see the


initiation by the board, in conjunction with the trade, of "cheese weeks." I hope that that example may spread. We are accustomed to the slogan, "Beer is Best," but there are other things besides beer that are best in our British production, and I want to see these high grade products better known and better advertised. I saw the other day that a former Member of this House died and left £116,000, which was made in advertising. It is an indication that advertising pays the advertiser as well as the advertising agent, and I hope the time is coming when we shall realise that more fully in agriculture. We have been troubled in the West country with a long-continued outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. When we came to consider the problem of lamb prices, one of the leading farmers said to me, "I think you are omitting one important factor. Foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks shut us out of our accustomed markets. The housewife becomes accustomed to taking Canterbury lamb in a very convenient form. The butchers and traders have also to take that fact into account. When the foot-and-mouth disease had gone and we were able to enter the market again, we found it was occupied by others." That was the time when the art of advertising ought to have been exercised to bring those fine quality products of the English soil to the knowledge of the housewives and traders.
This is a matter upon which we are reaching very near complete agreement in all parties; that is to say, the time has come when we should create the conditions which would enable the competent farmer to make farming pay so that he may put all his initiative into his business and bring wages to a level which will keep his workers in the countryside instead of their flocking into the towns. I think that our experience of the past decade can help us to a policy which will secure that end. I refer to the policy of guaranteed prices. In the Labour Amendment that policy is also endorsed, as I believe it is in the Labour agricultural programme. We already have its partial application in various forms in regard to wheat and bacon, and also to milk in that Bill which was hustled back into the Whitehall pigeonholes before it was explained or fully understood. I suggest that we should extend this principle to food products

which are essential in the national interests. We may then see agriculture thriving once again on efficient production—efficient because the industry must be organised to qualify for the guaranteed price. In that way I believe we shall give a solid foundation to the market and a new confidence to the producer to use his skill and initiative without fear of those violent fluctuations which have so often meant his ruin.
When I put this Motion on the Paper I had intended to analyse those experiments, those methods, which we have adopted in regard to guaranteed prices, but I feel that that will now no longer be necessary, and perhaps not helpful. The right hon. Gentleman who was then the Minister of Agriculture carried his review of conditions very far, and that review is to be followed by consultations between the new Minister and the leaders of the industry, including the farm workers. The purpose of my Motion will be served if the Government will accept the principle of guaranteed prices. Let these consultations with the industry be given their full weight with the certainty that if an effective plan is evolved we shall have no Parliamentary or other difficulties put in the way of its execution so far as the central Government is concerned. In my view, the most effective agency for working guaranteed price assistance is the industry itself. That has been proved in the case of wheat in the arrangements between the farmers and the millers. I hope it will be proved in the case of barley, as I think it will, in the arrangements between the farmers and the brewers and distillers. I know it has proved successful in the case of bacon in the arrangements between the farmers and the curers. Self-management is a great possession of the Englishman, and I want to see as much self-management as possible brought into the regeneration of the agricultural industry.
These guaranteed prices should be as-certained by an independent authority. We have a large volume now of authoritative costings covering a large part of agricultural production, and I do not think it should be impossible to strike a fair average of costs of efficient production so that it can be made the basis of a policy and give that inducement which is needed in order to restore confidence to the industry.
I know that it is said that this policy may upset the balance of agriculture, but I would remind the House that in the Wheat Act that difficulty is met by limiting the area of production coming under the Act. Many of us have memories of the ill-fated Corn Production Act and do not want to see over-production to a point beyond the capacity of the Treasury repeated in this new policy. The balance in agriculture must be preserved.
The second point raised is this: May not the gap which has to be filled by the Treasury be too great? In a year of low prices may not the amount which the Treasury has to supply prove to be intolerable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I would recall that the Wheat Act makes no charge upon the Treasury and adds nothing appreciable to the cost to consumers. At any rate I have lately been travelling a good deal in foreign countries and have not found any country in which bread is as cheap as it is here. The difficulty to which I have referred may be avoided especially if the charge is adjusted within the industry itself. Of course, the Treasury must retain the power of recouping itself to some extent by moderate import duties, and experience shows that this can be done without hardship to the consumers.
Lastly, I wish to touch upon the Empire side of the problem. Anybody who has relations with the overseas Dominions realises what a vital part they have in our policy. We face the world as a united Empire, as an Empire in working partnership. The strength of that position comes home to you when you look back upon this country from other countries, and see how public opinion abroad appreciates the fact that in times of crisis and in times of peace the British Empire stands together as one community. We cannot afford to do anything which would imperil that imperial partnership, and I am glad to think that the conference in Sydney which was attended by my hon. and gallant Friend the new Minister and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe) who, I hope, will speak in this Debate, has shown a way by which, in a co-operative effort with the producers in the Empire, this part of the problem may be solved. I myself attach the greatest importance to the proposal to establish commodity councils on the model of the

Empire Beef Council and the International Beef Committee, a system which is now being extended to lamb and mutton. We must try to get the Dominions to realise that gluts benefit nobody. A depressed price hits everybody; and the consumer is not advantaged, because it is only a very temporary benefit which he gets. The proper regulation of the market benefits all. I attach importance to that point and I hope the Government also do so. I would ask them to give the House an indication that they mean to pursue this matter with the Dominions in the spirit of partnership, so as to bring about, if we can, a working method which will meet the situation.
In short outline those are the arguments by which I would seek to support my Motion. I think it would give agriculture a real chance and also put Empire unity upon a new basis, doing it very largely by a new co-operative effort between producers, processors, distributors and traders. Why not follow our own precedents?

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Drewe: In rising to second the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) I should like to take the opportunity, as he did, of congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir R. Dorman-Smith) on his appointment as Minister of Agriculture. I would assure him that I believe all in this House appreciate the courage he must possess to accept that position, and I am sure that he will receive the good will of every Member in the great and difficult task which he has set himself. I should also like to associate myself with the remarks which my hon. Friend has made about my right hon. Friend who has recently left the Ministry of Agriculture, I believe that time will show that the legislation which he has been able to pass through this House in the interests of agriculture has resulted in laying a really solid foundation on which can be built up real prosperity for the industry which we all have so much at heart. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for using his place in the ballot this evening to initiate this Debate upon agriculture. I believe that in all parts of the House there is a greater understanding than there used to be of the fact that all is not well with


the agricultural industry, and that in the country as a whole—apart altogether from the rural districts—there is a fuller understanding of the fact that British agriculture is capable of playing a much greater part in our national economy if only it is allowed to become prosperous. In these days of economic nationalism, self-sufficiency and shrinking export trade, there is not the slightest doubt that if agriculture regained a real measure of prosperity she could play a great part, through the increased purchasing power of her people, towards helping British trade and industry.
I am not one of those who are unmindful of what the Government have been able to do for agriculture during these past years, and I want to pay a most grateful tribute to my right hon. Friend who has been Minister of Agriculture, because if it had not been for the Measures dealing with meat, wheat, pigs and sugar, and the land fertility scheme, which he has passed through the House, I do not know what would have been the position to-day of farmers or their workers. All of us who are in touch with the countryside are, I feel, really grateful to him and the Government for what they have already been able to do, but I must say that my feeling all through has been that when the Government have been framing their agricultural Measures they have had too low a standard in mind. It has always seemed to me that their object has been to try to stabilise the industry at its existing low level, rather with the idea of just keeping farmers out of the Bankruptcy Court. Those of us who come from the countryside and love our land know the position of the land to-day. We know that if the loss of fertility, the loss of working capital, the dilapidations which are piling up on the farms, and, most serious of all, the constant drift of labour, particularly the young men, from the countryside to the town, continue at the pace of the last few years the real crisis in agriculture will come in quite a short time, and it will come through the lack of skilled labour on the land. I am sure that is what is really going to cause a crisis in agriculture.
I believe that the Government are really in earnest to-day in their desire to save the agricultural industry, and I make this appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend and to the Government, that in

framing their agricultural policy they should adopt a rather higher standard, bringing the industry on to a higher plane than it has occupied in the past. In my opinion they ought to start framing their agricultural policy on the basis of a wage of at least £2 a week for men employed in agriculture. Let them start on that basis and let everything else fall into its proper place. I know that wages are not the only cause of our young men leaving the land. Going about the countryside I have noticed with a good deal of pleasure the improvement taking place in rural housing. I want to see that improvement continued and spreading all over the countryside. I should like to see a determined drive to get electricity into our more remote rural areas, a better water supply, and better drainage. If those things could be done at the same time, a proper wage in agriculture would be sufficient to get back our young men who have been driven from the countryside into the towns.
The whole question hangs on how can you bring prosperity back to agriculture. There is no alternative to the proposals outlined in this Motion. Farmers have not asked for favours but only for fairplay, and for equal treatment with industry, and that is what they ask for today. British industry has been saved, in the main, by tariffs and by the impartial working of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Many farmers realise that no Government could put on a sufficiently high tariff against foreign countries to be effective in agriculture. They realise that no Government ought to put on a tariff against our own Dominions, and that you cannot solve the problem which faces us to-day by restriction of imports alone. They say that if it is not possible to use these measures, some alternative policy must be brought forward which will give them equal benefit.
Their policy is price insurance. I believe that that policy will command a considerable amount of support in the country to-day. I do not believe that it is the desire of our people, whether from the town or the country, to see farmers go on producing certain commodities year after year either at cost or below cost of production. If, under a system of price insurance, the general price level were to rise sufficiently to make possible the pay-


ment of a reasonable wage and to give a fair return on the capital invested on the land, there would, of course, be no charge on any price insurance scheme. The policy of price insurance hangs on the setting up of an impartial committee to investigate the average costs of production. The duty of such a committee would be to ascertain, commodity by commodity if necessary, the average costs of production to-day and to inform the Government. If those costs left no margin of profit for the farmer it would be the duty of the Government to bridge that gap.
That brings me to the second part of the Motion dealing with the British Empire Producers' Conference at Sydney. In the past the hands of the Government have always been tied because they have never been able to get any agreement with the Dominions for the regulation of imports from Empire sources. I had the privilege of being a member of the United Kingdom delegation which went out to that conference. The delegation was led by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir R. Dorman-Smith) who is now the Minister of Agriculture. I am bound to say that if we met with a measure of success there, which I believe we did, it was due almost entirely to the leadership and personality of my hon. and gallant Friend. He made a very great reputation for himself out there, and I believe that he will back up this policy and bring in to a successful conclusion. It was the first time in our history that there has ever been a conference in the Empire of primary producers, and very important agreements were reached at it. There were at Sydney accredited representatives of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Southern Rhodesia, and the United Kingdom.
As the United Kingdom delegation it was our duty to point out to our friends in the Empire the great importance of British agriculture to the national economy of this country and to show that our market was not unlimited; that, in fact, in certain directions it already had reached saturation point, and in other directions regarding certain commodities it was rapidly approaching saturation. It was also our duty to point out to Empire farmers that British agriculture must, of necessity, play an important part in the

defence preparations of this country. After we had been able to show the real importance of British agriculture to this country and had been able to point out that, although this country is often looked upon as an industrial country, we actually employed more people in agriculture than are employed in agriculture in Australia and New Zealand put together, that, in fact, Great Britain was still the greatest agricultural country under the British flag, the conference recognising those things, was prepared to agree unanimously that it was right and necessary that we should have an unqualified first place in our own home market for our own agriculture. That was the first important agreement that was reached there.
Secondly, the conference agreed unanimously that an Empire organisation should be set up by producers to regulate the flow of Empire primary products into this country through commodity councils financed and controlled by the producers themselves. Those were the main recommendations of the conference, and many of us greatly welcomed the announcement that was recently made that mutton and lamb from Empire sources should be regulated on the model of the proposals set out at Sydney. Once more I should like to thank my right hon. Friend, the former Minister of Agriculture, for adopting that policy and that proposal, as he announced to the House a short time ago, just before we rose for the Recess. It was recently seen in Tasmania at the request of the producers' organisation, that the Government of Tasmania set up and passed marketing legislation enabling marketing boards to be established. Similar legislation has, I believe, been passed in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. The conference to which I have referred was one of producers. It was not in any sense political, and we left it with producers pledged to do all they could to give effect to that policy. In some cases their Governments have not, perhaps, been quite as keen on the proposals as the producers themselves, and it is in this direction that I think the Minister of Agriculture could help us very much. If he can use his influence with those Dominion Governments which have not yet given effect to these proposals, and which would have to pass legislation before effect could be given to these producer organisations, he would be render-


ing a very useful service to our farmers, and would pave the way to getting this policy carried out in its entirety, on which, I know, he is just as keen as anyone else in this House.
I do not believe that price insurance by itself could be a satisfactory policy, because, if price insurance alone were relied upon, there is no doubt that the charge on public funds would be too great. Nor do I believe that a system of regulation or restriction of imports could by itself solve the problem. I do not think that either of these methods would work by itself. I maintain, however, that if the Government would use a system of regulation of imports on the lines I have suggested, as far as the Empire is concerned, to maintain a reasonable price level and stop the fluctuations in prices which are so harmful to agriculture, the charge for price insurance would not be found to be unduly high. Anybody who has had the opportunity of meeting farmers in the Dominions and seeing something of the conditions of Empire farming can have nothing but admiration for these men, who are trying to make a living from the land and to maintain the fertility of their own land in those Empire countries. Nobody would want to do anything to make their position any more difficult than it is; I believe that their conditions are in many cases no more favourable than the conditions which our own farmers have to put up with in this country. But the farmers in the Empire realise, as we do, that saturated markets mean unremunerative prices, and they would prefer to see a regulated market and a stated price level rather than haphazard marketing and constant fluctuations in prices. I believe that, if we concede this policy of regulation of imports on the one hand and price insurance on the other, it will restore British agriculture to its rightful place without doing anything to hurt or damage our brother farmers in the Dominions.
The question is an urgent one, and I know the Government realise its urgency. Professor Stapledon told us recently in one of his works, that there are 16½ million acres of land in this country either in a derelict condition or not giving anything like their full yield. Those 16½ million acres represent, I believe, about 43 per cent. of the land surface of England and Wales. That is the chal-

lenge that we have to meet, and it is a very urgent one. I do not think it is beyond the power of this House to bring forward a policy which will prove to the world that in this country, under our system of democracy and freedom, we are just as keen on getting the maximum yield from every acre of our land as they are in any other country under any other form of Government. That is what we have to meet. My hon. and gallant Friend the Minister knows the problem. I can assure him that he will have the whole-hearted support and co-operation of the farmers of this country, and I believe also that he will have the whole-hearted support and co-operation of hon. Members in all parts of the House.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Price: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, and to add in stead thereof:
regrets that the policy hitherto pursued by His Majesty's Government has failed to deal with all the many problems confronting agriculture and the continued drain of skilled labourers from the countryside, and is of opinion that measures establishing guaranteed prices, a comprehensive scheme for the reorganisation of the existing system of distribution, together with provisions for securing proper equipment of the land and an improved standard of wage for the agricultural labourer, can alone restore prosperity and confidence to the industry.
Before speaking about the Amendment and the Motion before the House, I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the new Minister of Agriculture on his appointment. I do so with all the more pleasure as one member of the National Farmers' Union speaking to another. I am sure we are all glad to see this honour given to him as a past-President of the Union to which both he and I belong, and I, for one, wish him every success in his new position. He will have a difficult task, and may I add that I think he will need much courage and resolution to stand up to well-meaning people who cannot see far beyond their noses. He will get a lot of advice, to much of which I hope he will not listen. Further, I believe his character is such that he will be able to sift the advice which is given to him. May I also say how much I regret the fact that the late Minister of Agriculture is not now there. As a Gloucestershire Member like himself, I am certain that he will be much missed


in that largely agricultural county. I have an uneasy feeling, somehow, that he has been sacrificed. I know too well what kind of campaign has been carried on against him in certain organs of the Press, and perhaps the unfortunate experience of the Milk Industry Bill, with which he was closely associated, has also played some part. I very much regret the loss of that Bill. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman had the courage to bring it in, and am sorry he was unable to carry it any further. I shall have occasion to refer to it, perhaps, a little later.
The Motion before the House seems to me to be more significant for what it omits than for what it contains. The speeches of the Mover and Seconder seemed to me to be very much better than the Motion itself. The hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) did recognise the fact that this country is a great industrial country, in the national economy of which the export trade is a very important factor, and that somehow agriculture must fit into that framework. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe), I am glad to see, also recognised the limitations of tariffs and restrictions on foreign trade as an aid to agriculture. I only wish that that had been indicated in the Motion. No one can quarrel with that part of the Motion which proposes
assuring such a level of remuneration to producers as will cover the cost of efficient production,
nor with the remaining parts of the Motion, except that perhaps—
the method of regulating imports as agreed upon by the Empire Producers' Conference at Sydney
indicates an over-emphasis on the mere restriction of imports. The Amendment I move goes a good deal further, and is, I suggest, much more comprehensive. There is a welcome reference in the Motion to the question of improved wages for land workers. It has been recognised, I think, by every one now that if we are to retain the workers on the land they must be given better conditions, better wage conditions, and, let me add, better conditions for leisure and holidays with pay on a far more generous scale than is permitted under the very poor Act which was passed last Session.
Now I come to the Amendment. It contains three main points. It agrees, of course, with the Motion that guaranteed prices are essential, and with the extension

of that principle, while in regard to milk, bacon, wheat and other products it must be continued. But it also goes on to indicate that the working of the existing schemes are not satisfactory, and that certain amendments and alterations, and, indeed, additions, are necessary. It suggests, in fact, that reorganisation of our system of distribution is essential—and that is not referred to at all in the Motion. The Amendment also refers to the need for better equipment on the land, in order to enable the farmer to produce efficiently. This is a matter of very great importance, because landowners to-day—very often, I admit, through no fault of their own—are unable to provide the necessary equipment to keep going efficiently.
Let me take that part of the Amendment which deals with guaranteed prices. I have no doubt that the new Minister will be bombarded before long, if he has not been already, with requests from the barley growers and sheep owners in different parts of the country to deal with those branches of the industry. It is true that there are catastrophic conditions in those parts of East Anglia where these are the most important products of the industry. It seems to me that there is an opportunity for seeing what can be done in regard to price insurance there. Is it possible that there might be something like a Barley Marketing Board, to pool the prices of barley, something on the lines of the Milk Marketing Board? We have to be careful, because what might be suitable for the farmers in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), who are barley producers, would not be suitable for the farmers in my constituency, who are mainly barley consumers. We do not want high prices for feeding barley. But, much in the way that we pool prices under the Milk Marketing Board for manufactured milk and liquid milk, cannot the new Minister work out some means of assisting the malting barley growers without making it difficult for those of us who are concerned with feeding barley.
In regard to sheep, the position has been very serious for some months, but I think we have touched bottom. Not so long ago I was working out the prices I have received for sheep in the Gloucester market over the last five or six years. I found that we are back to the low prices we had in the last big slump, from 1929 to 1932. We have come down with


a bump. It is a very unpleasant process to have to revalue your stock down to meet those conditions. It is time something was done to even out conditions. Of course, fluctuations are not always due to human causes: Nature takes a hand. But fluctuations of that kind ought to be evened out. Is it not possible to deal with the prices of sheep in some way similar to that in which the price of beef cattle is dealt with? Could we not somehow apply the Livestock Industry Act to sheep? Could there not be some kind of efficiency payment based on quality, such as is provided under that Act? I suggest that the new Minister should look into that. The idea of guaranteed prices is certainly very much in the air these days. Not only has it been suggested by the Empire Producers' Conference at Sydney, which advocated the setting up of commodity boards, but in the very important and interesting document "Agriculture, 1938," published by the National Farmers' Union, the principle was put forward.
The principle is undoubtedly sound, but I would make this reservation: that producers' boards cannot fix prices. It is the consumer and the general public who must have the last say, not the producers' boards. That is one reason why there is difficulty in the milk industry. The Milk Board tries to fix prices and is unable to control the retail prices. Consequently, the consumers have to pay much higher prices than they should. Surely, this is a case where commodity boards, if set up, must have over them independent commissions, or the Minister himself must revise those decisions of the boards and be the final arbiter of the prices to the consumers. Let me come to the next part of my Amendment, relating to
re-organisation of the existing system of distribution.
It is a fact that, taking agricultural produce all round, 60 per cent., on an average, of the retail price goes in transport and distribution. This is far too large a share to go to them, and the producer himself gets far too little. It has been estimated that throughout England and Wales, in regard to milk, the producer gets 10d. a gallon on the average, winter and summer, transport 5d. a gallon and distribution 11d. a gallon, and the average price is 2s. 2d. retail. There are a

number of causes which I cannot go into here because it would take too long, but the Milk Industry Bill, which was brought in by the Government last Session but which did not, however, come before the House, took some steps in the direction of dealing with that problem. It is true that it was very hesitant, and it did not go as far as I should have liked to see it go, but it went a certain way. I am one who, if I cannot get a whole loaf, will take half a loaf, and then ask for the rest. I much regret the withdrawal of that Bill, and I hope that the new Bill, when it comes, will deal with the question somewhat along those lines. I believe that that Bill was defeated by an unholy alliance of the Milk Marketing Board, the producer-retailers and the distributors coming together.
In the last resort, it is the consumer who determines the prosperity or otherwise of the agricultural industry. As the Mover of the Motion stated in his remarks, we are still dependent upon our export trade. We must export to live, and we must import in order to export. Nevertheless, I believe that there is abundant room for a revived agriculture within the framework of our foreign trade system. I will quote a few figures in order to show the connection that exists between agricultural wholesale prices and the buying power of the people. In April, 1933, the average agricultural wholesale price, as given by the Ministry of Agriculture, was an index figure of 105. In 1937 the average price was 140, the highest point reached, and throughout 1938 the price was down to 124, and agriculture felt the pinch in consequence. I would remind the House that between April, 1937, and April, 1938, 350,000 more men in industry were unemployed owing to trade depression. They were put upon Unemployment Benefit instead of having industrial wages. Immediately, owing to that large additional army of unemployed, there was a drop in purchasing power, and I maintain that part of the drop in price to 124 was due to the additional 350,000 unemployed industrial workers. That was the cause of the trouble in the main and not imports. In actual fact, during that time, when there was an increase of unemployment in industry, there was slightly less corn and flour, mutton and lamb, and bacon, and only a little more beef imported into this country. It could not possibly be the


imports that caused that slump, but the lowering of the purchasing power. In other words, the success of the agricultural industry is only possible within the framework of a prosperous industrial population, coupled with such measures of price and import control, and elimination of waste in distribution as is foreshadowed in the Amendment which I have the honour to move.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Quibell: I beg to second the Amendment.
I desire to associate myself with the kind words of congratulation that have been given to the new Minister of Agriculture. I, along with others, have heard him deliver one or two speeches in this House, and he has now got a fine opportunity of transforming his ideas with respect to the policy and restoration of agriculture into concrete acts. We wish him every success in his endeavour to put agriculture upon its feet.
I desire to detain the House only for a few minutes in order once more to call attention to two or three subjects, which would, I believe, really restore agriculture to its proper balance and would not involve the imposition of tariffs which cause an increase in the price of essential feeding-stuffs. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) has said, no one can gainsay the fact that the barley grower has had a very bad time indeed. While it may be true that in the division which is represented by my hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment that cheap barley is essential, I want to apply the same principle to his part of the country as I do to the agricultural labourer, and say that the urban populations ought not to have cheap food at the expense of the agricultural labourer, nor should his division have cheap barley at the expense of the barley growers. [Interruption.] That is a united front.
I am going to express my view to the House on this matter as I did nine years ago. There is no reason why a low price for barley should obtain at the present time. I sometimes look across the House at some of my hard-headed friends who are farmers because they know something about the difficulties, but they are really more hard-headed than I would expect them to be. I find from the farmers records that last year the brewers made

£3,000,000 additional profit chargeable to Inland Revenue, out of which their own Government take 5s. 6d. of every £. The Government take £725,000 additional revenue because the brewers and maltsters have paid an uneconomic price to the growers of barley. What are the Government doing? Despite all that, the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion have said (in their hearts they know that the Government have not given the farmers a square deal), "Now that you have grown 400,000 acres of barley, we are going to be generous with you. We have taken £725,000 additional taxation, so we are willing to give you 10s. an acre on 400,000 acres of barley. It will cost us £200,000, and we shall keep £525,000 for ourselves." I wonder who would not be a burglar in these circumstances. They have rifled the pockets of the barley grower and have used the brewer in order to do it, and then they say, "We will give you 10s. an acre back again." Anyone who knows anything about agriculture knows that the Government are playing with the subject.
To-night we have a new Minister and everybody wants to hand him bouquets. I want to do so, but I shall not hand him any bouquets in regard to the Government's policy at the present time. Where does the brewer stand? He is all right. He has a stabilised price, but not so the farmer. So far as the farmer is concerned, and he is beginning to realise it, the Government have had no regard what ever to his interests. They have an agreement with the brewers. Two years ago I spoke on this subject and I was told there is a gentlemen's agreement. I leave it to the House to guess how far the brewers and the maltsters are gentlemen, when they are paying 23 shillings a quarter for barley and they know that the farmers have been having an exceedingly bad time. I know one man who was a farmer when I was a boy and whose father was a farmer before him. He failed the other week, and he has not sufficient stamps at the age of 65 to get a pension. He is worse off than any of the labourers who ever worked for him. That is not a rare case. I have written to the Minister about it and I have no doubt that I shall get a sympathetic reply, but I doubt whether I shall get a pension for the man.
Let me say a few words about wheat. I want to help the Minister out of a difficulty. We are told that he needs sympathy. I think he needs help. What is wrong with the wheat position? Why should the farmer be growing wheat in this country at a price which is uneconomic, which does not enable him to pay proper wages and to make a decent profit? It is because the great milling firms, Spillers, Ranks and the Co-operative Wholesale Society, who control nearly 90 per cent. of the milling industry in this country. So far as the local farmer is concerned in my county, if he has 20 or 30 quarters of wheat, they tell him to take it to the chickens. They care nothing about it. They can get wheat in thousands of tons at the great ports, where they import it from the foreigners much more easily. When the local farmer goes to the market with his 20 or 30 quarters of wheat they do not want to look at his samples. I attended market regularly every Monday before I came to this House and I know what happens.
In regard to both barley and wheat, which are in the hands of a few big buyers, I would take drastic steps. I would compel them to give an economic price for their barley. I would compel them to take 80 or 90 per cent. of good malting barley and to give 50s. a quarter for it. You cannot make beer any weaker than it is, and you certainly cannot make it any dearer, because it is one of the dearest things one can buy. If we could make barley a paying proposition we might, to some extent, remedy the sheep problem. If we put those two problems right we should go a long way to deal with the potato problem, because the people growing barley and rearing sheep would do that instead of competing with those who grow potatoes. I would stabilise wheat in the same way. I would stabilise an economic price for these main products, and if we did that we should go a long way towards putting agriculture on its feet.
It is high time the Government exercised sufficient courage to deal with the matter. What is the position to-day? We find that 4s. 5d. per cwt. is being given for wheat, and yet they are charging for flour, not of the best quality, 1s. 6d. a stone. Offals cost more per stone than is given for the wheat. It is

an outrage and a scandal, and the Government know it, and steps ought to be taken to deal with it. One of these big milling companies had an issue the other day and hon. Members know at what price the 5s. shares were issued. They were issued at a tremendous premium, simply because it pays to mill the wheat, but it does not pay the poor fellow who takes all the risks in growing the wheat. It is our duty to remedy that state of affairs.
There is another matter to which I would draw attention. Some time ago the Minister of Agriculture stated that there was a surplus of 300,000 tons of potatoes. We hear of people suffering from malnutrition, and yet we are told that there are 300,000 surplus tons of potatoes, one of the cheapest and best foods grown in this country. It is a crying shame. So far as these surplus potatoes are concerned, I suppose they will be told to throw them back or leave them to rot. It is no wonder that at the meeting in Lincoln which was attended by the late Minister for Agriculture the farmers there were incensed, and showed it in no uncertain way, because the Government had taken no steps to deal with the position. The Potato Marketing Board's job is to promote a scheme for taking the surplus potatoes and manufacturing them into some of the products of which we so sorely stand in need. So far as my knowledge goes, they have only made one development, and that is the Farmers' Marketing Supply Company at Wisbech, whose managing director comes from the great milling firm of Spillers. I thought the producers would have known better than to have a managing director from one of the great milling firms to preside over them and educate them into making potato flour, when, as a matter of fact, he does not want any such manufacture from the surplus potatoes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, the fact is that it has not been done.
The price they are paying for potatoes is about 20s. per ton, and the Potato Marketing Board are making a contribution of 10s. to 12s. 6d. a ton as subsidy to the F.M.S. Company in order that the surplus potatoes may be dealt with. The maximum amount that they can deal with is 10,000 tons per annum, and yet the surplus is declared to be 300,000 tons. I leave hon. Members to guess


whether that company is getting on with the job. The Potato Marketing Board does not seem able or willing to erect the necessary factories for manufacturing the surplus into potato flour and so improve the national loaf. Potatoes went into our bread during the last War but not in the proper way, because the proper machinery was not available for making them into potato flour. It was done by the mashed potato process. The market value of this flour is £30 per ton, and it requires four and a half tons of potatoes to manufacture a ton of potato flour. It is fetching even more to-day in Germany and in the United States of America.
The Potato Marketing Board commenced operations in 1933. They imposed, as I suppose they were entitled to impose, a limit on acreage, riddle regulation and on the quantity of potatoes reaching the market. But this year, owing to the huge surplus, their efforts at limiting the quantity has been absolutely useless and futile. The reason why we have this tremendous surplus is that given by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, who congratulated the Government on having improved the fertility of the soil. They have given producers facilities for obtaining basic slag and lime, by which they have been able to produce this enormous crop of potatoes, and then the Potato Marketing Board proceed to make an order by which at least 50 per cent. of the crop is unsaleable, while at the same time the Potato Marketing Board have not erected any factories to deal with the surplus which would provide us with many of the potato by-products which we import at the cost of an enormous amount of money. And yet the farmer is expected to contribute to the Potato Marketing Board in order that they may be able to find new means of dealing with this surplus. So far scarcely anything has been done by the board with the levies which they have made on the farmers.
I think the Board should turn its attention to the manufacture of such by-products as farina dextrine, glucose, potato flour and soluble starch, because we are importing these products to the value of £800,000. Our annual import of potato products above is equivalent to between 300,000 and 500,000 tons of potatoes. While that problem remains and while we import these by-products it is an insult to the men into whose hands this information

goes to talk about a surplus. I maintain that this is a matter which should receive attention, and the Government will have no more ardent supporters in finding a solution than hon. Members on this side of the House and in the rural districts of England. The Potato Marketing Board have subsidised one factory, but it deals with only 2 per cent. of the surplus. That is infinitesimal. It is really playing with the question. The Board has been meditating for four years—"meditating," I think, is the best word. When will they erect the promised chain of factories—to deal with what we are now pleased to call the national surplus? During the last War the price of potato starch rose from £12 per ton £80 per ton and other products from potatoes were almost unobtainable in the country. We want to be helpful in these matters, and if we have anything to contribute we want to make it in a practical way but, before we can apply the remedy, we must know the disease, and I am somewhat sceptical as to the composition of these various boards, and whether they are doing the best to remedy the genuine grievances of the farmer. As far as I am concerned, I think I shall have to meditate again and really consider what my future attitude should be towards these boards.
What are the economics of putting potato flour into the British loaf? Taking the average price of potato flour at £12 10s. per ton—it is worth more than that—potato flour is worth from £25 to £30 per ton to the baker. Actually, as a bread improver it sells in America for £30 per ton, in Germany for £50 per ton, and in small quantities for a rather inferior product a market is found in this country at £60 per ton. To remove 300,000 tons of potatoes annually as a 2½ per cent. admixture in the loaf, it would be necessary to reduce the price to the baker to £25 per ton, and to make the wholesale price at £15 per ton. The cost of collecting and manufacturing by existing commercial processes is 67s. 6d. or, if we allow for intermittent working through seasonal effects, the cost is 75s. per ton. It takes 4½ tons of potatoes to make one ton of flour. Therefore, the return for potatoes at farms is as follows: wholesale price realised for one ton of flour 300s.; cost of collecting and processing, 75s.; residue for 4½ tons of potatoes, 225s.


The value of one ton of potatoes at the farm is 50s., which means that the farmer would receive a price for his surplus equal to the price he is now receiving for his wares.
There are cheaper processes capable of producing better products, and therefore a slightly higher return to growers. I sometimes wonder whether the Potato Marketing Board is really capable of dealing with this problem. It has neither dealt with it itself nor has it made way for some private firms who would have put up the money to erect factories if they had had a sufficiently long guarantee to enable them to see a return on their money. It has done nothing itself nor allowed other people with imagination and enterprise to deal with a problem which is so vital to the countryside. The board had applied for powers to manufacture. While this move of the Potato Marketing Board has deterred private firms from manufacturing themselves, important questions have been raised as to whether the board can successfully handle this manifold task of utilising in industry to the best advantage of the nation this 600,000 tons annual surplus.
Can it, for instance, master the ever-increasing mass of technicalities necessary for manufacture, let alone those necessary for the development of industry? Can it handle the delicate negotiations required to market against such well-rooted businesses as the flour milling industry? Can it override and circumvent the artifices of the foreign invested interests actively at work in every nook and cranny of the potato product industry—the very interests from which it must obtain its technical and sales information? Obviously it cannot, and proof of this lies in the small success it has made from its choice in the barley meal substitutes industry, that is, but a 2 per cent. consumption of the surplus at only one-half the minimum compensation acceptable to growers for the enforcement of the riddle regulations. This having been the outcome of five years of the best efforts of the Potato Marketing Board, one may justly assume that it will require 50 years of Potato Marketing Board organisation to correct the present plight of British potato growers.
This matter, I know, has been raised before, but only for a few minutes on the

Adjournment, and I am quite certain that the present Minister may not have had time to look into it, but he knows the problem just as well as I know it, and he knows that it is a very vital problem. It is not only vital for the big man, but it is vital for the little man, and it applies to so many growers in this country that they could defy this so-called order, which it is doubtful whether the Potato Marketing Board has really the legal power to enforce. If they were all to stand against it they would break it down to-morrow. I was talking to a farmer a week last Monday, and he told me that he dared not open his potato pie—they call them "pies" in Lincolnshire—because there were so many potatoes on that particular farm above one pound in weight that he was keeping them in the hope either that the regulations would be withdrawn or that there would be such a shortage, and consequent demand for good potatoes, that he could get rid of the whole of his crop in the spring.
So far as the Minister is concerned, if he goes in for standard, stabilised, economic prices on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend and myself, we shall lend him all the aid we possibly can. I, personally, hold the opinion that neither tariffs nor subsidies are necessary to agriculture if you will only give it the same square deal that other industries have, and stabilise the price for its products. In conclusion, I should like to say that the appointment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as Minister for Agriculture will give farmers renewed hope that this Government will put the stable products of agriculture on an economic foundation, and if he does that there will be no one better pleased than myself.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. R. Acland: I would like to join in congratulating the Minister on his appointment, an appointment which makes me feel very old, because I remember that in the opening words of his maiden speech, in accordance with the courteous custom of this House, he made a few kind remarks on the closing sentences of mine; and now, while I and many of his other colleagues occupy seats on the humbler benches of the House, he has risen to Cabinet rank—a meteoric rise all the more remarkable in view of the fact that he is not one of the members of the party of the Chancellor of the


Exchequer. Then I think there is a point in which I agree with the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd). It is a point that indicates, I think, that the Government is turning its mind in the direction of the words which the hon. Member has put on the Paper, and from this bench I would not seek by speech or vote to condemn the Minister in advance for what he may have in his mind. But I do fear that some of his hon. Friends behind him may have made the task a little bit difficult for him, because over these last 10 years in the agricultural constituencies they have held out to the agriculturists such dazzling promises of what can be done, first through tariffs—which were deserted—then through subsidies—which were deserted—then through guaranteed prices.
I cannot but congratulate the hon. Member for Devizes on being honest and calling this solution guaranteed prices—in which he was not followed by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe), who called it price insurance. I wish he would drop that expression, because insurance means paying money into a pool in good times in order to draw money out of the pool in bad times. There is nothing of that in the suggestion which is put before us to-night, and I suggest that we return to the expression "guaranteed prices," which does accurately describe it. That is going to be a very grave problem.
Another problem was foreshadowed by the hon. Member who has just spoken, who indicated that as soon as you have guaranteed prices, as you have in the case of potatoes, you immediately come up against the problem of restricting output and what to do with the surplus. If you guaranteed prices for all of us it would run you into bankruptcy.

Mr. Quibell: There is no guaranteed price for potatoes.

Mr. Acland: If you mean a scheme to hold up the price for potato growers as a whole, you immediately come up against difficulties in the volume of output. Then, of course, if you guarantee a price, the money has to be raised, and I think the House should recognise that it is all the same whether we put this burden on the Exchequer, where the public can see it, or whether you try to get it out of the public in some other way which does not enter into the national budget, and the straight thing is to put it right on

to the Exchequer where we can see it. That means, of course, that the Minister is going to have to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he who sups with the Devil must have a long spoon, and the Minister, of course, has not a long spoon; and unless something is done a great many seats are going to be in jeopardy.
We have talked about this matter without mentioning figures, and I would like to be so bold as to mention actual figures. How much is my right hon. Friend going to get? Suppose that he gets £20,000,000. Suppose that he got £20,000,000 a year more than is being given now, and it was spread over agricultural produce, it would mean that wheat would rise from 4s. 5d. to 4s. 10d. a cwt., bullocks from 40s. to 45s. a live cwt., and that oats would increase by 7½d. a cwt. and lamb by 1d. a lb. I do not sneer at those increases, for they would be very welcome and very useful; but does anybody pretend that such prices—prices which we remember as prevailing not in the days of prosperity but in the days of adversity—would enable the farmers to drain their fields, would arrest the drift from the land, add substantially to wages, or attract new capital to the industry? Would such prices make agriculture flourish? It is important to remember that once the Government begins to guarantee prices, a very dangerous process starts. Suppose that a price at present is 45s. and the Government say they are going to guarantee 50s., immediately the market would react, because as soon as there was a guaranteed price, the inducement to withhold supplies would have gone, and the market which was paying 45s. would begin to pay 40s., and then 35s. It would be found that to guarantee a price of 50s. would not cost £5,000,000, but possibly £10,000,000 or £15,000,000. Therefore, to guarantee the minimum prices which I have suggested would cost, not the initial £20,000,000 which one might think, but a substantially greater sum.

Mr. De Chair: I know that the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House, but the figures he has given are fantastically inaccurate. Will the hon. Member give the source of his information, because the Minister of Agriculture has given information on the Floor of the House showing that at a cost of £6,000,000 a year the average prices ruling from July, 1937, to July, 1938,


could have been very substantially increased?

Mr. Acland: I got the prices in the following way. The to al value on agricultural produce in this country is £200,000,000 or thereabouts, and £20,000,000 would represent an increase of 10 per cent. Of course, I am assuming that it is spread evenly, although I quite agree it would not be spread evenly, but would be concentrated on some things, while others would be left aside. However, if it were spread evenly, there would be a 10 per cent. increase. Do not let us think that we are going to start a boom of prosperity along the lines of the Exchequer guaranteeing prices. I hope that simultaneously with any policy on these lines the Minister will work on other lines which will have a permanent value apart from the money contributed by the State.
The lime scheme is doing good, but it is a poor shadow of real land improvement, such as Professor Stapledon talks of and practises. He says that one can invest £7 an acre in agricultural land, get it written off in seven years, and still draw a dividend on the capital. Of course, the farmer cannot put £7 an acre into his land and wait seven years, nor can the landlord; only the State could do that. I commend to hon. Members opposite the need for a large-scale experiment, not in farm owning, but in land owned by a land corporation. The time has come when the Government should encourage and undertake such an experiment. I hope the Government will consider whether something cannot be done on these lines with the acres and acres of class "B" or class "C" pasture throughout the country.
I beg the Minister not to reintroduce a scheme which contains a little board for every interest, each board becoming an organisation paying its secretary to fight for its own interests against everybody else. I beg the Minister to transform the Milk Marketing Board into a Milk Commission of independent persons, with expert advice, charged with the function of administering the industry in the public good. When he makes the experiment with regard to reducing the costs of distribution of milk, I beg him to keep that experiment in his own hands, or to put it into the hands of a commission, and not leave it in the hands of

private interests, which may run the experiment with a view to concealing rather than revealing the greatest possible amount of information.
I would like to say a word or two about rabbits. It is a question of hard cash—and we are dealing with hard cash just now. I have received my information from somebody who knows a bit about the matter, but I have not taken his estimate: I have doubled it, and then added five. I am convinced that I am not wrong when I say that at a capital cost of £15,000,000 and an annual cost of £250,000, rabbits could be virtually eliminated. One could then ask the farmers to pay £3 for 100 acres of arable land and 10s. per 100 acres of rough grass for the benefit of being free of rabbits. That would bring in £1,000,000 a year. This would mean that after paying maintenance, you would earn 5 per cent. on your money, and would have got rid of a vermin which costs British agriculture, as some say, £10,000,000 a year, but as I believe £20,000,000, although some believe even £70,000,000 a year.
There is another parasite on this industry; it is the big monopoly. From manuring fields to buying barley to distilling whiskey is one industry. In the past, the way in which they divided up the profits between them was nobody's concern but their's, but now that part of the industry is coming to us for help, the profits, and how they are made, in every part of the industry are our concern, and we have a right to say what those profits shall be. Suppose that we found that the raising of store cattle paid very well, whereas the stock fattening side of the industry was going bankrupt, we should adjust the price of stock cattle. What is the difference between the buying and selling of stock cattle and the buying and selling of malting barley? A profit of £30,000,000 was made. There you have a guaranteed price for barley, without a subsidy from the taxpayers.
In conclusion, I would remind the Minister of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) over 13 years ago. It is still true. If we are to take steps to restore prosperity to this industry, we must take steps to see that that increased prosperity, after it has reached the farmer, goes to the farm workers in increased wages, and not to the landlords in increased rent. I have


not heard from any hon. Member opposite a vestige of recognition that that is the fundamental problem in our agricultural industry, to be solved before we can see prosperity again.

9.44 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I am sure hon. Members will realise that it is something of an ordeal for me to come from the shelter of darkest Back Bench land to this extremely exposed spot, but by extending to me their accustomed courtesy, as they always do to a new Minister, in such full measure as they have to-night, they have made this first appearance in public much easier than I thought would be possible. It is a rather remarkable coincidence that it was after the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) had spoken that I made my maiden speech in the House. I hope that is a good omen. I fully realise that this kindness to-night is merely a respite and that soon I shall be confronting very much sterner faces than are before me now, but to-night I would thank the House very much for their kindness and forbearance to me. The House will not expect me to-night to say very much or to attempt in any way to make a detailed statement of Government policy. As the House will remember, on 22nd December last my predecessor announced that the Government were undertaking a review of the agricultural situation and that it was intended to consult with the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales and of Scotland in connection with the considered views which had been advanced by those bodies. Until that review and those consultations have been completed, I am sure the House will not expect any statement from me.
Perhaps I may be allowed to make a few observations on some of the points which have been raised, so far, in this Debate. First, it is absolutely clear to me that there is a wealth of good will towards agriculture and its problems in this House—a good will which I think truly reflects public opinion. I believe that the country now is rightly insistent that all practicable steps shall be taken as quickly as possible to enable our own soil permanently to play its full part, both in times of peace and—indeed more especially—in times of emergency. In principle there is general agreement that

"something must be done." How often have we heard that phrase. We all deplore the facts of the situation. We all deplore the drift of men away from the land. We all deplore the loss in our arable acreage, and we all deplore the loss of fertility which has occurred in our soil. But, clearly, if the present situation is to be remedied—and I am sure that I shall have the House with me here—there is no good in just going on deploring it. We have to take the necessary action to set things right and I recognise that, while it is moderately easy to agree in principle that something is wrong, it is when we come to discuss the precise methods which we ought to adopt, and what we ought to do to put things right, that there arise the real differences of opinion which occupy so much time in this House.
Differences as to the right methods to be used have been made apparent to-night. The party opposite favour guaranteed prices because they are in the fortunate position of not having to tell us what level of prices they would be prepared to guarantee. I would like to say this: I draw a great distinction between the system of guaranteed prices, as carried out, for instance, in New Zealand for butter, and the policy which we in this country have adopted for wheat and which I look upon as price insurance. There is a very distinct difference between the two, as I am sure the hon. Member for Barnstaple will agree. In any case there is one way in which the party opposite suggests. They also suggest that there should be a comprehensive review of the problems of distribution. The hon. Member opposite, I am sure, will not think me unkind if I say that he apparently would solve the difficulties of the position by arithmetic. I will go into those figures which he gave us in his speech and will try to see whether I can possibly carry out anything on the lines which he has indicated, but I confess that I found it rather difficult to follow some of his figures. Nevertheless obviously the Liberal party have got different ideas from us as to what methods should be applied.
I have no doubt that other hon. Members would have advocated straight tariffs and that some would have advocated levy subsidies. The Motion suggests the extension of the price insurance policy which has already been initiated—and this is important—by the Govern-


ment, for certain commodities. The Motion says that this policy should be coupled with the proper regulation of imports by bodies representative of producers in all the producing countries which are in fact concerned with supplying our markets with food. The Opposition in their policy have got something like the same idea, but not quite the same. They would prefer that the Government should regulate imports. Our view is that it can best be done by the producers. That is a fundamental difference between our two policies.
On all sides, one can see that there is a genuine desire to achieve the same object as that which the Government have in view, namely, the completion of their task of safeguarding the health of the land and through the health of the land, safeguarding the prosperity of all those who are concerned with the production of our food. But it is clear that the day is far distant when we can expect complete agreement on the methods to be employed to complete that task. Unfortunately, as I think the House will agree, agriculture cannot wait for that happy day when we shall all agree in this House. In more than one department its needs are really urgent. If we are to achieve that expansion of food production from our own soil which is necessary in the interests of the land and of the country as a whole, I believe that our action must be swift and direct. If we are to expect farm workers to remain on the land and indeed to return to the land in the numbers which I would like to see, we must leave no doubts in their minds that they will receive a square deal. If we are to expect those whose duty it is to do so, to maintain the health of the land and to store up the essential reserves of fertility within it, then I believe that immediate steps must be taken to enable those men to fulfil their duty to the soil.
I have good reason to know how conscious all those engaged in agriculture are of the particular duty which they owe to their own soil. My experience is that they do not look on the land so much as a means of acquiring wealth, but rather as a national heritage which it is their duty to preserve. I have been vastly impressed—I could not help being impressed—by the letters which I have received since my appointment from farmers

all over the country. Nearly all those letters say, in one way or another, that they expect no miracles—which is lucky for me, as I am sure the House will agree—that they do not expect to carve out any privileged position, that they do not expect to be placed in the privileged seats, but that they do expect to be allowed to farm the land as they know it should be farmed. Surely that is a reasonable request insomuch that our land is, probably, the only lasting asset which this country possesses and is an asset, therefore, which must not be wasted.
I hope the House will accept the Motion which has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd). I believe that it is only along the lines indicated in that Motion that action sufficiently swift and sufficiently direct, can be taken, having regard to the conditions in which we find ourselves to-day. I refer more especially to our commitments under trade agreements and such like. I hope that along these lines we shall in fact be able to formulate a policy which will meet, or at any rate go a long way to meet, many of the points which have been raised by various speakers to-night.
The first part of the Motion is a recognition of the work done by two of my predecessors and by Members of this House in two Parliaments to bring very much needed assistance to many branches of agriculture. All farmers, in my experience, recognise the value of the measures that have been taken and realise that in the difficulties which have faced primary producers throughout the world during the last seven or eight years farming could not have been carried on in this country at all, and that our countryside would probably have been derelict, had it not been for such measures as have been mentioned—the cattle subsidy, the Livestock Industry Act, and various other Measures which have been given us to help many branches of agriculture. No one recognised better than my predecessor how much remains to be done. I know that he had plans and hopes for this current Session. As has often been said, agriculture has to make a contribution to defence, and I believe that agriculture has made a great contribution to defence by allowing my right hon. Friend to go to a Ministry which will be closely concerned with the problem of defence. [Laughter.] I rather anticipated that


that laugh might come, but I did think that after the kindly references which have been made to my right hon. Friend, perhaps my remark would have been treated in the spirit in which I meant it. It will be my right hon. Friend's duty to deal with defence in its very widest aspect, and I am very glad to know that I shall have the benefit of his sympathy and help in the difficult task which I have before me.
The Motion goes on to suggest that further measures are needed. We all know the difficulties which the farmer still has to face—they have been recounted to-night—but surely the fundamental difficulty is that any profit which he may make on some of his products may be swept away by the price of some other staple product of his farm collapsing, and collapsing for reasons over which he him-self has no control. More than this—and this is an important point, I think—owing to the depression of agriculture over so many years, many farmers simply have no reserves with which to recoup their heavy losses, and unless there is a greater measure of stability in prices, farmers cannot possibly maintain the fertility and the productivity of their land. I am sure it is the wish of every Member in this House that that fertility should be improved and that that productivity should be increased; but it cannot be, unless both farmers and farm workers get a square deal, and they cannot have that square deal if they are in fact subjected to the instability and the fluctuation of prices which have been revealed during 1938 in such great staple products as barley and sheep.

Mr. Boothby: And oats.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There is one observation that I would like to make about the Motion. The Motion recommends
an extended use of the principle, where appropriate, of assuring such a level of remuneration to producers as will cover the costs of efficient production.
It is notable that that is a rather different definition of objective from that which is contained in the National Farmers Union statement of policy. The National Farmers Union advocate the adoption of price insurance plans to operate wherever unduly low price levels are shown to exist, and they have not as yet attempted a precise definition of price insurance.

This difference does bring out one of the difficulties which is inherent in the case and to which we shall have to face up. It is not an easy thing to ascertain the costs of production in farming. I have every desire to examine this problem, a desire which is shared by farmers, because they know that they have nothing to lose by putting their cards on the table—nothing at all. I have also a great desire to see a fair level of wages included in the costs of production, and I intend to examine what means can be adopted to bring about such an inquiry as this, but it is inevitable that it is hound to be a lengthy and somewhat laborious process, and I feel certain that the House would not wish that the Government should delay all action until such an inquiry has been completed. Further, I would hesitate to try to define what exactly an efficient farmer is. The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) has on more than one occasion told us how some people would define the efficient man as the man having merely tractors, petrol engines, and the like.

Mr. Quibell: And a dog.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am satisfied in my own mind that our farmers are the most efficient in the world, and what we shall seek to do is to ensure to the ordinary man on the land that he will in fact be able to carry on his business with confidence and to maintain his land in good heart.
The second part of the Motion deals with the regulation of imports, and the House will remember that the Government have already expressed, in July last, their general approval of the principle of the regulation of supplies through commodity councils, as proposed at the Empire Producers' Conference at Sydney. Recently the Government have given concrete evidence of their desire to encourage the formation of commodity councils by the enlargement of the Empire Beef Council to deal with imports of beef, mutton, and lamb. The House, therefore, can rest assured that the Government favour this method of control of imported supplies and other suitable commodities. But it will be realised that the general intention of the Sydney Conference was that the initiative for the formation of such commodity councils should come from producers themselves, and while we will give every possible help and en-


couragement to their formation, I hope this initiative by organised producers throughout the Empire will in fact be forthcoming.
Many other important points have arisen. The position of consumers has been mentioned, as inevitably it would be, and I can assure the House that, in my experience, farmers are extremely interested in the ability of consumers to buy their products, and thoroughly realise that the mere raising of prices, by itself, would be no solution of their particular problem, but they suggest that in the long run it is not in the interests of consumers that producers of food throughout the world should be compelled to sell at a loss. I think that the party opposite thoroughly appreciate that fact, as Lord Addison certainly appreciates it. When all is said and done, we have only to look at the direction of our export trade, which mostly flows to those countries which rely upon primary production for their prosperity; and we have only to realise the enormous importance of agriculture in this country to make quite certain that, in the interests of our own country and of our own people, there is a fair level of prices throughout the world. Other things have been mentioned, and I am sure other things will be mentioned before the Debate finishes. There is, first, the question of how we are to improve the quality of our home production; second, how we are to improve the processing and marketing of our home production; and, third, advertising. Mention has also been made of land drainage and credit facilities, which are important points.
I believe that all these matters, which by no means exhaust the points to be dealt with, are bound to play a really important part in any permanent scheme which we may devise for agriculture. I can assure the House that in the review which the Government are undertaking none of these points will be neglected. It must obviously be our object to enable home agriculture in all its branches to achieve the maximum degree of efficiency so that it can meet competition under the most favourable conditions. The benefits which can accrue through the points I have mentioned, however, come rather slowly, and I believe that the first thing we have to do is to provide our farmers and farm workers with real confidence in the future.
The Government have made good progress with their review and they expect to meet the National Farmers' Union to discuss their proposals next week. The invitation went out to them because they had, in fact, submitted definite proposals, but before we have completed the review I hope to have the advice both of those who represent landowners and those who represent the workers' interests. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the consumers?"] The consumers are very well represented. I can hear somebody saying that this is a hope which arises out of inexperience. I do hope, however, that as a result of these consultations and with the co-operation of all concerned in the production of food we shall be able to evolve proposals which will allow agriculture to face the future with that degree of confidence which is essential in any business both for its prosperity and for its efficiency. It has already been announced that whatever legislation is found to be necessary as a result of this review will be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
All I would do now is to ask the House to believe that I do not under-rate the difficulties and the complexities of the problems which still remain to be settled, and I am fully aware of the responsibilities which are attached to this office. At this moment we are striving to make our country completely secure, and I know of no more important task than that of ensuring that in all circumstances there will be adequate supplies of food for our population in times of emergency. However heroic they may be, no people can fight on empty stomachs, and I am conscious of the fact that home agriculture must play a leading part in providing our country with the assurance that they need not worry about their stomachs. More than that, I believe that in all our citizens, whether they dwell in towns or whether they dwell in the country, there is the knowledge that no nation can possibly remain as strong and as virile as we intend to remain if it allows the land from which it derived its strength to decay. One has only to study the columns of our newspapers to realise the depth of the desire of our nation to recreate a healthy and prosperous and a more numerous rural population. That, too, is the desire of the Government, and I hope that with the help of the House we shall be able to make some further real contribution to the fulfilment of that desire.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: May I express my regret that the ex-Minister of Agriculture is no longer Minister of Agriculture and echo the sentiments which were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd)? I want to congratulate the new Minister, not only on his appointment, but on his first ministerial speech. Whether we agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's observations and policy or not, I hope it will never prevent us from expressing the hope that he will succeed in his new office. On my way to London I read the various newspapers in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's appointment was announced. It was described as "a surprise," as "unexpected"; he was referred to as "a dark horse" and the appointment was described as "very ingenious." I do not know which of those descriptions fits the hon. and gallant Gentleman, although I think I can say that for the sake of the industry we are all hopeful that he will succeed in fulfilling the expectations which he has thrown out in his speech. We know that the Prime Minister moves in very mysterious ways. He has been credited with slowly retreating before the dictators. His most recent appointment to the Ministry of Agriculture is a headlong dash before the farmers of this country. After all, it is not to be wondered at. There was the redoubtable Jimmy Wright of Norfolk, who was sent to London by the Patronage Secretary to become a messenger boy between one room and another; there was the danger in the Holderness by-election; and there was the threatened farmers' march on London.
The Prime Minister had farmers to the right and left of him, and all round him. What could he do but bring in a farmer and place him in the front line trench? I think it was the only thing the Prime Minister could do in the circumstances. My only regret is that the ex-Minister has been sacrificed in the process. We know that for seven years the National Government have been doing something, but my characterisation of what they have been doing is that largely they have been fiddling with a big fundamental national problem. They have "sacked" three Ministers in five years and almost destroyed their political reputations. When the hon. and gallant

Gentleman was appointed I wondered whether it was intended as a compliment to him—and I hope it is—or intended to allay the anxieties of agriculture or whether there was a possibility that this was intended to dig an early political grave for him. I am not at all sure that the last-named may not be the case. However, the "Yorkshire Post" gives us some clue to the real reason for this appointment. Its headlines this morning state:
£15,000,000 MORE FOR BRITISH FARMERS. STATE AID TO BE DOUBLED.
It goes on:
FROM OUR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT.
Westminster, Tuesday.
British farmers are to get an extra £15,000,000 a year from the State. That was the condition upon which Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, former President of the National Farmers' Union, accepted the office of Minister of Agriculture last week.
I should like to know from the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he did lay down a condition to the effect that no less than £15,000,000 extra per annum would have to be paid to agriculture. The hon. and gallant Member quite wisely, and in the most perfect Ministerial fashion, strictly avoided any reference to that condition. We know that the new Minister does know something about the problem confronting him. He has told us just now exactly what the farmers think, what the nation is thinking and, at long last, what politicians are thinking about this problem. If the "Yorkshire Post" correspondent is strictly correct—and he does not seem to hesitate; he is in no doubt about it—in saying that £15,000,000 extra is being granted, I want to ask why that £15,000,000 was not granted before? Why was it necessary to revise Ministers if the money was there and it was necessary that it should be handed over? Perhaps history alone will tell us why.
We know that the new Minister possesses a first-hand knowledge of the industry. We know that he has helped to produce most of the policies of the National Farmers' Union for quite a number of years, and by now he should know what is the solution for the problem. I do not see the need for deputations next week. For deputations to come to London from Leeds and elsewhere, spending their hard-earned money to tell the ex-President of the Farmers' Union what the Farmers'


Union really wants, is merely a work of supererogation. In any case, from that point of view, the hon. and gallant Gentle man is perhaps the right kind of person to fill his post, if only the policies promulgated from the National Farmers' Union are worth a moment's examination. I read in the "Times" of Monday morning their leader referring to the new appointments, in which they made some slight reference to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. They said:
As ex-President and delegate of the National Farmers' Union, we may yet hear him saying in the best Mikado manner, 'I suggest—nay, I insist—that the Government should guarantee simultaneously more profits for the farmers, better wages for the workers, and cheaper food for the masses. As President of the Board of Agriculture, however, I conceive it to be my duty, first to express my heartfelt sympathy with myself over the unhappy condition in which I find myself, and then to meet my own proposals with an uncompromising negative.'
I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to experience the conditions laid down by the writer in the Times."
I come now to the Motion before us and to the Amendment which has been moved. The hon. and gallant Gentleman tells the House that the terms of the Motion are not quite identical with the proposals of the National Farmers' Union, but that the difference is so slight as to be almost unnoticeable. In any case, the Motion calls for a guaranteed economic price which will enable the efficient farmer to meet his costs and to pay better wages to agricultural labourers, and goes on to ask for commodity boards to determine the regulation of imports. The policy of the National Farmers' Union simply asks for what they call very simply, a price insurance policy. A brief reference was made to it by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have examined their proposals very carefully, because I hoped that they did provide the basis for a lasting solution of this agricultural problem.
The more I look at their proposals—that is, the proposals of the National Farmers' Union and not those of the Minister, since he is no longer President of the National Farmers' Union—the more they look so delightfully simple as to be almost impossible of acceptance by a hard-boiled House of Commons. They simply ask that a committee be appointed and be empowered to fix a price and that, with changing circumstances, they can

vary the price; that commodity boards can regulate imports as and when it is necessary to enable the British farmer to have first place in his own market. In the interests of the farmers, and particularly in the interests of the Minister, who has now to consult and satisfy not only his late colleagues the farmers, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his colleagues on that Front Bench and finally this House of Commons, before he proceeds to further negotiations, I want to ask him one or two questions.
He made reference to wheat and to the wheat policy at present applicable to this country being an insurance policy, but it does not appear to me to be quite a form of insurance when only one partner in the concern can receive any benefit. Suppose, for instance, in the price insurance policy propounded by the National Farmers' Union and by the great conference convened by three Conservative Members and held in Yorkshire last week, which they said was strictly an impartial conference of farmers, auctioneers, merchants and the rest—although I noticed in the document they circulated that they actually pinched out of this National Farmers' Union statement of policy a full page containing the National Farmers' Union proposals—

Mr. Turton: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? He has made a statement which is not quite accurate. The conference did not circulate that document; it was circulated by the farmers in the conference, which was composed of industrialists and farmers. Invitations were sent to Members of all parties.

Mr. Williams: Yes, but on the frontispiece the words are, "Conference convened by"—the three hon. Members who were responsible for the conference.

Mr. Turton: Read on.

Mr. Williams: I do not want to controvert anything, but they said that at this so-called impartial conference they put forward only the National Farmers' Union proposals with which I am now dealing, if the hon. Member will permit me to do so. Suppose a price is fixed for a commodity and, as a result of a bad season, the price fixed by the small committee is exceeded, will the surplus price above the fixed price be paid into the Treasury? That is my conception of in-


surance. If the fanner is to be guaranteed a static price, clearly that ought to be the price, but if the price is exceeded because of a bad season, clearly that excess ought to proceed to the Treasury, so that when Nature is very kind and there is a good season, a surplus on the market, the bottom falls out of the price and the farmers are in need of receiving the fixed price, we can go back to where the surplus went to insure the farmer against loss that year. Is that the Minister's conception of price insurance? It seems to me that that is one of the basic questions to be dealt with in this so-called price insurance plan.
If the Government are going to fix a price, through the agency of the Committee, for those commodities which are suitable for this particular operation, are the Government going to permit the farmers to continue to sell their product as they please; or, since the Treasury is to guarantee the farmers a specific price for their commodity, will the Government insist that the farmers shall sell their commodity to the best advantage? It seems to me that these questions have never been faced by the National Farmers' Union, or, if they have, they have never been recorded in their documents; and, since they have never been recorded, it seems to me that they have not examined the implications of their price insurance plan. Further, will the fixed price for any commodity be for a specified quantity, or will it be a fixed price regardless of the quantity and regardless of fluctuations in output?
A good deal has been said in this Debate and in previous Debates about the colossal tragedy and disaster to barley growers. It is, of course, one of the fundamental problems affecting agriculture that one never knows what nature is going to do. What was the problem in regard to barley last year? The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that in 1936, which was about an average year for output and price, there was no complaint from barley growers. In 1937, in which year the output of barley was abnormally low—576,000 tons—because there was a short supply and a bad season, the price went up from an average of round about 9s. per cwt. to 13s. 3d. There was not a word from the producers of barley that year. But in 1938, which was a record season both in yield per acre and in total output, the

yield jumping from 14 cwt. to 18 cwt. per acre and the total output from 576,000 tons to 803,000 tons, the market was saturated, and, therefore, after the first 4,000,000 cwt. had been sold at an average price of round about 8s. 9½d. per cwt., the remainder fetched only about 7s. 10d.; and, because nature was so kind, the barley grower was supposed to be suffering disastrous consequences in that year. What is the price insurance plan going to do with the ups and downs of crops of that description? If the price fetched is 13s. 3d., and if the guaranteed price is 10s., will the 3s. 3d. go to the Treasury, so that when the price falls to 7s. 10d., when nature is awfully kind, the Treasury can provide the other 2s. 2d.? If the Treasury have to meet an unknown liability for all time, then the permanent prayer of the Treasury will be, "We thank thee, O Lord, for a wretched, bad season," That must be the case unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to face up to the realities of this price insurance plan of his.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman made little or no reference to the question of distribution. It is true that we have produced, for the first time, an Amendment in which we use the expression "guaranteed prices"; but we ally guaranteed prices with a definite reorganisation of the distribution system in this country. As we conceive it, we could not afford, I do not think the Treasury would permit for a moment, and I am sure this House, once it understands the proposal, will not assent to, guaranteed prices for the farmers or anyone else, and then allow the farmers or anyone else to sell to whom they like, how they like, and at what price they like, the Government making up the difference. It simply cannot be done. Therefore, as we see the problem, we are willing to guarantee a certain fixed price, based on all our experience over a long period—and the statistical department of the Ministry of Agriculture know what is a fair average price for every commodity down to cabbages—and we are prepared to agree to the fixation of an average price; but when the Government—that is the Treasury—have guaranteed the price they are clearly entitled to control, to a large extent, the sale of that commodity. Unify the two, face up to the full problem, and then perhaps hon. Members on these benches will go all the way with the Government.
I have not forgotten that in 1934, in this House, one of the predecessors of the Minister informed the country as to the condition of the beef industry in this country. There was no way out, he said, except to grant a subsidy. A subsidy of 5s. per cwt. was granted on high quality beef. But for the last seven weeks preceding the operation of the subsidy the average price was 40s. 3d.; for the seven weeks following the commencement of the operation of the subsidy, the average price was 35s. 7d. Where had that 4s. 8d. departed? In seven short weeks an average of £3,400,000 is given to agriculture, and it has vanished between the Treasury and the butcher's shop. What is the Minister going to do with that when the Government guarantee a price or give a direct subsidy? It is no use telling me that, after all, the price might be increased, because for the last quarter, including Christmas, of 1934, the price had fallen from 40s. 3d., which was the pre-subsidy figure, to 34s. 6d., including the subsidy.
It may be said, "Did not the price go down to the consumers?" As a matter of fact, the Department tells us that the retail price went up by ½d. a lb. in the same period. The farmer gets less, notwithstanding the 5s. subsidy, and the consumer pays more. Is the Minister going to do anything about that? It is no use asking hon. Members just to pay sums to agriculture. It is not fair to agriculture to do that, and it is not fair to the House and the country. The Rural Reconstruction Association have been looking at this problem, and they say:
Regret is expressed that little or no attention is given to the problem of distribution. It has been computed that distributors retain on the average 60 per cent. of the prices consumers pay. The association believes that under a reorganised system of distribution the same functions could be carried out efficiently at a cost of 40 per cent. of the consumers' prices. The consumer then need pay no more for what he buys, while the extra 20 per cent. which would reach the producer should be sufficient to allow for the difference between the present inadequate returns and the fair profitable standard prices recommended.
They may not be the greatest experts in the world, but they have a point of view on this problem, and it is because we feel that that fits our policy that we want the Minister not only to think in terms of chivying the poor miserable Chancellor of the Exchequer for £15,000,000, but to

do something that will permanently restore prosperity and confidence.
I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he has any ideas about distribution at all? There is a warning, and he had better be very careful. His predecessor started to do something in a very timid way about reorganising the distribution of milk, and that was the end of the ex-Minister of Agriculture. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to be very careful what he does about that. If he is convinced that his Government are going to remain in office for the next seven, eight or nine months, he wants to leave his mark on the annals of the Ministry of Agriculture as having done something substantial and fundamental that will remain of permanent value to them. He must think in terms of reorganisation of our present distribution system. He must do that if he wants to command the support of the people in this House. The hon. Member who seconded the Conservative Motion, referring to the Sydney Resolutions, of which the present Minister of Agriculture was a very active supporter, said that we cannot afford the haphazard marketing scheme which is going on at the present moment, and that we must bring the Dominions and the Colonies together and must organise the importation of our food supplies. That is all very well, but let us do some organising in the distribution of our food supplies in this country too.
There is only one other thing that I want to say about that. There is only one price insurance plan in existence in this country at the moment, and the right hon. Gentleman who has just left office was responsible for it. The only price insurance scheme in existence with regard to agriculture applies to bacon. So long as the price of bacon and the price of feeding stuffs remains at a certain figure, then certain prices are paid, but in certain circumstances, if the prices remain the same but the cost of some feeding stuffs is reduced, the pig producer has to make a payment to the Treasury. He is now making a payment to the Treasury of about 4d. per cwt. That is the only price insurance scheme in existence, and yet—and every pig producer in the country knows it—there were 60,000 fewer pigs last December than there were the year before. That is not very encouraging anyhow.
We on these benches recognise that agriculture is confronted with very many problems. We know that the agricultural labourer is not only a skilled man, but that his output per person has increased by 30 per cent. over the last six or seven years. We know that the costs of feeding stuffs are only 103 as compared with 100 for the years 1911 and 1913. We do not hear anything about that from the opposite benches. But with all the advantages that agriculture may have enjoyed in the past, we are not satisfied with the present position. We want to see our farms well equipped and the farmer in a position to make the maximum use of his land. We are satisfied that the present landowner cannot or will not provide the means. If the landowner will not do so, then the State must step in and guarantee to the producer a reasonable price for his produce, and the State, having guaranteed the price, must see to it that the consumer is not exploited between the farmer and the consumer.
Nor must we allow the Treasury to be exploited for interests who are getting infinitely more than their fair share of the products. We, as well as the Minister, want to see the farmer prosperous. We want to see the right hon. Gentleman adopt the right policy. We do not want the farmers to be led up the garden in the future as in the past. I hope that the new Minister of Agriculture, with all his practical knowledge of the industry, will bring that knowledge to bear not only in the Ministry of Agriculture but with his Front Bench Cabinet colleagues. I hope that he will pay attention to the productive and distributive problem and let us have something lasting and fundamental for this industry.

10.41 p.m.

Major Sir Ralph Glyn: The Debate has shown that in every quarter of the House there is great anxiety to give the new Minister every support in his hard task. We all feel with him that everything must be done for the land of England and that that is the right way to approach the problem. The points that we are particularly conscious about are that unless something is done, and done quickly, to give credit and a feeling of confidence in the industry, the situation will become almost irretrievable. Secondly, we have to remember that unless something can be done to assist the landowners who may

be willing but cannot find means to improve the condition of the land, it may be necessary to consider quite boldly the whole system of land tenure in this country. If we believe that the land is the one thing that matters, and I certainly believe that, it is absolutely essential in certain cases, but not by any huge scheme of nationalisation, that those who own land shall be able in some way or other to pass it over in circumstances that will enable the land to have proper treatment.
I know from my own personal experience that if one has a relative who may own a large estate on which there are a good many tenant farmers, and he is an old man, every one of those tenant farmers is counting the day to hear that the landlord has died. He may hang on for some time. They are not putting back into the land what they should put back into it because, owing to the system of Death Duties and heavy taxes on land, which has been going on now for many years, the State has been taking away the capital of the country and using it as revenue. If we really believe that the land is the wealth of the country and must be nurtured as wealth, it is a wrong form of taxation to go on year after year penalising the land and taking away from the next successor the means of supplying the farmers with the wherewithal to work the land. If that system of land tenure is to go on much longer it must mean ruin in a great many parts of the country.
There are many men who are landowners and who have such a love of the land that it breaks their hearts to see it going back. There is no hon. Member who does not recollect seeing the country from the windows of the railway train in a very different condition from what it is to-day. We see reeds and rushes where before there was pasture. We see fences broken down, and if we go to any steading we see how much money must be spent to put it in proper order. When we have that sort of thing going on throughout the country it is not fair to blame the Ministry of Agriculture, which is like Bluebeard, with many wives in this House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman who is the last wife will remain for ever in the favour of the House and the country.
It is not fair to blame the Minister if the fundamental system of taxation makes it impossible for farming to be conducted in the way that we should expect.


Therefore, I should like to see the Government face the situation boldly and squarely. I detest the idea of hon. Members opposite for the nationalisation of land. You cannot nationalise the land and look after it sufficiently well because there are not trained supervisors to enable you to do so. The banks at the moment are owed by the agricultural industry some £90,000,000 to £100,000,000 of money. If there is indebtedness of an industry you can put in a receiver and continue to work the factory or the colliery, but you cannot, owing to the multiplicity of farms, put in a receiver and see that the land is worked to advantage. The consequence is that as we lack any system of land credit banks it is impossible to exert proper supervision and, therefore, there is a growing dislike by the banks to make further advances.
We wish the new Minister of Agriculture all good luck and I hope that Members in all parts of the House will give him assistance and help in his task. But, at the same time, I think we must face the fact that owing to the penal form of taxation it is almost impossible, especially in some parts of Scotland where no money is coming in from the land, and where farmers have not paid rent for four or five seasons, for the laird or the landowner to continue to make advances to carry on any land, because he has come to the last of his resources. This situation is sufficiently urgent to demand the attention of His Majesty's Government and of every hon. Member who calls himself a Conservative. Conservatism used to mean conserving something which is worth keeping. The land is certainly worth keeping, and I think it can be done if we turn right away from the quack remedies of hon. Members opposite and from this penal taxation and see if we cannot get fairness in taxation, a form of taxation which does not fall on a particular form of national wealth upon which hundreds and thousands of men depend for their living. It should not be beyond the wit of this House to face the matter boldly and realise that the system of Death Duties on wealth which is not negotiable is putting them in a perilous situation. The question should be looked at without prejudice. We must recognise that if we do not deal with it soon it will become very difficult for any Govern-

ment to find the necessary finance to put farm buildings in order and see that drainage is carried out, which used to be done before this form of taxation was imposed. I feel that whilst there are many palliatives we have to look further and deeper for some of the underlying causes of agricultural depression.

10.50 p.m.

Sir Thomas Rosbotham: I rise to support the Motion. The observations which have been made by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and by other hon. Members have all shown that it is absolutely necessary to do something to retrieve the agricultural position. One hon. Member was rather disturbed about the damage done by rabbits. I can tell him a way to get rid of rabbits. Let him apply to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), who can send him sufficient colliers to get rid of that pest. I welcome the new Minister for Agriculture, and I think the ex-Minister, who has sat by him to-night, is going to stand by him in all his work. An additional responsibility now rests upon the right hon. Gentleman the new Minister and on the National Farmers' Union. The National Farmers' Union must stand by the new Minister and help him to formulate the policy. That duty rests on every one of us, too. We must try to do our best. We have ideas, and we must contribute them.
I am not here to decry what the Government have done for the farmer. On the contrary, as a farmer I am in a position to appreciate what they have done. The Wheat Act was the salvation of many farmers. Revenue duties on agricultural produce have saved the agricultural position, and if you travelled through the division which I represent you would find there not only glass houses but glass farms. Sugar beet growing has been put on a permanent basis. The new policy of cheap fertilisers was a step in the right direction in order to improve the fertility of the soil; and I would like to make a recommendation, namely that those farmers who wish to cultivate oats or barley should not be deprived of the subsidy because they are getting the wheat subsidy under the Wheat Act, because oats and barley are shallow-rooted plants, and wheat is a deep-rooted plant, and if you keep growing wheat on the same rotation you are losing some of the fertility


of the soil. The canning industry has given a great impetus both to agriculture and horticulture.
I would also like to emphasise a point which has already been made, the heavy burden placed on agricultural land by the high death duties and estate duties. I am speaking as a farmer, and I know the hardship to tenant farmers that has been caused by the estate duties. As a result of those duties the present landowners are not able to spend as much as they would wish to do on their land and buildings and on draining and fencing.
The Government have not neglected rural housing, and the district councils are now engaged in that important work, and I welcome that because it will do away with the pernicious system of the tied cottage. The Government have also passed unemployment insurance for agricultural workers. That has been lacking for many years. The city and the town and the countryside are all linked up and must work together. There are Members in this House who represent city and town divisions who are at the present moment doing all they can to support the Government in their policy of restoring prosperity to agriculture.
I quite agree with the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that something ought to be done with regard to the distribution of agricultural produce. I believe that the Marketing Boards have not risen to the occasion. We had a bumper crop of potatoes this year, and the poorest of the poor in our towns and cities are not getting the benefit of that crop through faulty distribution arrangements. This is a matter that will have to be looked into. All that the farmers want is fair prices for their main products, based on the cost of production. For years, Leeds University has been making calculations on the cost of production of crops, and other universities and associations could do the same thing. There would be no difficulty in ascertaining what are the costs of production. A healthy and prosperous rural population is a national asset. From where do we get the best statesmen? From where do we get the best professional men? From where do we get the best railwaymen, with a clear sight gathered from the green fields? From where do we get the best policemen? From where do we get the best wives? We must have a rural population. I wish the Minister success in

bringing prosperity back to agriculture and the countryside.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: I was not particularly anxious to intervene in the Debate, except for a reason which I think the Minister will appreciate. He and I have known each other for a considerable time, and I want to wish him success in his office, especially as one realises that he is facing a difficult passage. The honour would not have fallen upon him had there not been a complete failure in other directions and in other quarters to meet the position. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been summoned to the aid of the Government to deal with a position which has been steadily deteriorating over the last few years, in spite of all that has been done from the Government Benches. Therefore, I am quite sincere in expressing the hope that he will manage the job; but I do hope that, in view of the experience of the effect of subsidies upon the position of the farmer when he comes to sell his products, the Minister will be suspicious about handing out too much in order further to subsidies the marketing of the produce.
I ask him to turn his attention to the simple fact that the produce of our farms, the fresh food that builds up the health of the community, is being bought by people who, for some reason or another, can afford to buy it, and that the people who are not buying this produce and who ought to have it, not for any reasons connected directly with agriculture, but because of their own physical needs for the kind of food that agriculture is capable of producing, are not buying it for the simple reason that they cannot afford it. If there is any subsidisation to be done, it ought to be directed towards improving the purchasing power of people who are now buying tinned milk, not because they like it, but because they cannot afford liquid milk; frozen and imported meat, not because they like it, but because they cannot afford fresh meat; and the same thing applies throughout. A woman in the town does not need to be told that an egg that was laid yesterday morning in the nestbox is far better for her purpose than one that was laid three months ago 13,000 miles away. The only reason she does not buy it is that she cannot afford it. I beg the Minister to see that there is an institution of some kind,


and that an authority is established, that puts money into the hands of the consumers, in order that they may buy, not agricultural produce—

Sir P. Hurd: Sir P. Hurd rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Morgan: —but the food necessary for the health of the men, women and children in the industrial areas of this country.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 107.

Division No. 28.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W)
Errington, E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Owen, Major G.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Allan, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Evarard, Sir W. Lindsay
Patrick, C. M.


Andersen, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Petherick, M.


Apsley, Lord
Gluckstein, L. H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Radford, E. A.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Granville, E. L.
Ramsbotham, H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gretlon, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Beechman, N. A.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Ropnar, Colonel L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Guilt, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Bracken, B.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hambro, A. V.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Harbord, A.
Rowlands, G.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brooks, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Scott, Lord William


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bull, B. B.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hepworth, J.
Smith, Bracewell (Outwich)


Butcher, H. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Higgs, W. F.
Snadden, W. McN.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Somerset, T.


Cary, R. A.
Hopkin, D.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Channon, H.
Hunloke, H. P.
Spans, W. P.


Christie, J. A.
Hunter, T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hutchison, G. C.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Joel, D. J. B.
Storey, S.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colman, N. C. D.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sutcliffe, H.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Tate, Mavis C.


Croft, Brig.-Gen, Sir H. Page
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cross, R. H.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cruddas, Col. B.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lees-Jones, J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


De Chair, S. S.
Levy, T.
Turton, R. H.


De la Bère, R.
Lewis, O.
Wakefield, W. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, K. M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Denville, Alfred
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lloyd, G. W.



Dixon, Cast. Rt. Hon. H.
Loftus, P. C.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Donner, P. W.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)



M'Connell, Sir J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Margasson, Cast. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Markham, S. F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Marsden, Commander A.
Williams, H. G. (Creydon, J.)


Dunglass, Lord
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Eastwood, J. F.
Mayhew Lt.-Col. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Eckersley, P. T.
Medlicott, F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wise, A. R.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Munro, P.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Emery, J. F.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.



Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Sir Percy Hurd and Mr. Drewe.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hayday, A.
Parker, J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
John, W.
Sexton. T. M.


Benson, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Collindridge, F.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J.(H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
McGovern, J.
Walkden, A. G,


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Watson, W. McL.


Frankel, D.
MacNeill Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Mathers, G.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J (Ogmore)


Cibson, R, (Greenock)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Groves, T. E.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Price and Mr. Quibell.


Hardie, Agnes
Paling, W.

Main Question again proposed.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.